Aimiel, can you elaborate on your title as "prophet"?

[godrulz]

Your view is the problem JWs have in that they insist that Jehovah is true God and Jesus is a god. The problem with this (arises because of denial of biblical truth) is that it is POLYTHEISM, while Judeo-Christianity is strictly monotheistic. A rejection of trinity and incarnation leads to these secondary god theories. The reality is that there is one true God by nature, but many so-called or false gods. Jesus, the monotheistic Jew, was not claiming to be a secondary god by nature (vs judges being delegated 'gods'), but the one true God, equal with the Father (worshipped equally in Rev. 4-5; Heb. 1:6). So, Jesus is either true God or a false god. There are not two true gods without falling into polytheism. New Age divine ideas, semantics, etc. to not resolve the issue like a triune understanding does (Gal. 4:8; I Cor. 8:4-6).

 

[Krsto]

Your view is the problem JWs have in that they insist that Jehovah is true God and Jesus is a god. The problem with this (arises because of denial of biblical truth) is that it is POLYTHEISM, while Judeo-Christianity is strictly monotheistic. A rejection of trinity and incarnation leads to these secondary god theories. The reality is that there is one true God by nature, but many so-called or false gods. Jesus, the monotheistic Jew, was not claiming to be a secondary god by nature (vs judges being delegated 'gods'), but the one true God, equal with the Father (worshipped equally in Rev. 4-5; Heb. 1:6). So, Jesus is either true God or a false god. There are not two true gods without falling into polytheism. New Age divine ideas, semantics, etc. to not resolve the issue like a triune understanding does (Gal. 4:8; I Cor. 8:4-6).

Neither of us are accountable to the Watchtower Society so I don't know why you keep bringing them up. What they believe is not germane to the issues. You, the JW's, and the Arians have a similar understanding of some key issues. So what? What you and I are accountable to is the Word of God, so let's get back to it. Shall we?

When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy he had claimed to be one with the Father. That was it. Jesus also prayed we would be one even as he and the father are one. Oneness = strict identity? Obvously not. Jesus' reply to them was pointing out the fact God called them god (as representatives of God) so what's the big deal if he claimed to be the Son of God? In classic Jesus style, he stopped their mouths by giving them 2 choices: either they don't believe the scriptures (something they would never admit to) or they believe the scriptures, and therefore believe they are gods, and should be stoning each other if they are going to be consistant with their judgements. Classic gotcha moment, ala Jesus our Lord!

But to say he claimed to be God Almighty here is unfounded. That would be tortured exegesis, akin to squeezing blood from a turnip.

If you say Jesus is the only true God, and the Father is his God, then you are the one with a problem to deal with. I don't have that problem.

Your triune understanding RESOLVES the dilemna? I will give you every opportunity to demonstrate that.

"Trinitarianism is STRICTLY monotheistic." Sigh.

So "Jesus is either true God or a false God," you say. You disregard the biblical alternative: that Jesus is theos. If you get a lexicon (bible dictionary) and learn what the word means perhaps that will help.

BTW - It's nice this discussion hasn't been discovered by the nutcases on this forum so I can have some uninterupted dialog with you. I appreciate the opportunity to chat with you. Let's keep it quiet so no one finds out we're here . . . :cheers:

BTW - I'll be in surgery tomorrow so don't expect a speedy response.

 

[Krsto]

The collective evidence supports this. When He made claims to equality with the Father, the Jews rightly understood Him and went to stone Him for blasphemy. Unlike them, you fail to understand these claims, but like them, you reject them (Jn. 5:18; Jn. 10:30-33; Jn. 1:1; Jn. 8:58; Jn. 20:28; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1; etc.).

Just because you do not see the biblical evidence does not mean it is not there. Thomas should have been rebuked by Jesus if Jesus was not God (there is only one true God).

Jn. 1:1 alone defeats your unbiblical view.

"Collective evidence" is the sum of the parts, each part being a piece of evidence in and of itself, no? Before you can claim collective evidence you need to first provide at least one clear passage that proves Jesus claimed to be God Almighty. Agreed? If I have a pile of evidence that proves there was a conspiracy to assasinate JFK, then I ought to be able to pull at least one piece from that pile to prove my point, doncha think? Or is it that somehow a pile of evidence becomes evidence in favor of my point simply because I have piled it up?