The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I have explained it to you MANY times that the works of the law that no one has to do anymore are the ceremonial works.

Is "sell all you have" a ceremonial work?

Jesus didn’t command all to do that.

Is the standard of righteousness different from person to person? If not, then "sell all you have does not just apply to the rich man, it applies to everyone. So why do you disobey Jesus? You are condemned by the very laws you place yourself under. "I, GT, obey everything Jesus says," yet you don't obey "sell all you have." You. Are. Condemned.

You refuse to give the scripture where Jesus commands all to do that.

I just did. Matthew 19:21. If that command was not for all, then why was all of Israel selling all they had in preparation for Christ's return?

Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. - Acts 2:44-45 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:44-45&version=NKJV

Those preaching the gospel with him were to do that, not all.

Was the rich man preaching the gospel with Christ? No, so there goes that argument.

We are not all rich men who chose their riches over God.

"Sell all you have" seems pretty universal to me.

Hahahaha give the law where all are told to sell all they have.

Jesus doesn’t command all to do that.

See above.

You are hard and rebellious.

I'm not the one refusing to obey absolutely everything Jesus said.

You want to tell untruths about what happened so that you can say, “See, no one has to obey anything Jesus says because you would have to be homeless.”

Jesus said to sell all you have, and give it to the poor, and then follow Him. You have not sold all you have.

You are a worker of iniquity.

I'm not the one who is refusing to do what Jesus said.

In your ugly doctrine, tell me if the poor are to give up all that they received, or are they sinners for not?

No. They are not, nor do they sin for not doing so.

You have no understanding and it is because you follow the flawed teachings of men instead of having Jesus reveal himself to you:

I clearly have a better understanding than you, GT. You don't even seem to know what it means to obey everything Jesus said.

John 14:21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him."

Thank you for the beautiful scripture verse GT, one which was addressed to Israel (and only Israel) prior to Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
 

NWL

Active member
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

That name is not Father.

Yes but that text is in relation to Jesus being the only who gave the opportunity for us to be saved. It also clearly states the name is limited to under heaven among men, thus it does not limited the Father. Tell me, according to John 3:17 regarding the Father who sent the son, did he send the Son so that he could save the world through Jesus?

(John 3:17) "..For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.."

Since it was God who made Jesus saviour who should all glory go to and also could not the Father also be called saviour since it was him whom made Jesus saviour who enabled us to be saved?

(Acts 5:31) God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

NWL said:
So where is the teaching that "God is one who is three persons" in the verse?
God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)

I think you know you've already lost. Where exactly do the verses state that God is a trinity? You've yet to back up your claim with scripture that clearly teach the trinity.

For those who desire to believe what the Bible says, God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; however, that is only for those who want to believe what the Bible says.

I asked you to show me a single verse where it teaches the trinity, all you've shown me are verses that has mention of the Holy spirit the Father and Son. A verse that groups three persons together is NOT a teaching of the trinity it proves nothing.

Again show me a single verse that teaches the trinity, that God is one who is three persons.

 
Last edited:

Rosenritter

New member
The word made flesh is NOT the same as God in the flesh.

What does scripture say is required to believe in your heart?

Joh 1:1
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Ti 3:16
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

It seems to be the same over here.
 

God's Truth

BANNED
Banned
Is "sell all you have" a ceremonial work?



Is the standard of righteousness different from person to person? If not, then "sell all you have does not just apply to the rich man, it applies to everyone. So why do you disobey Jesus? You are condemned by the very laws you place yourself under. "I, GT, obey everything Jesus says," yet you don't obey "sell all you have." You. Are. Condemned.



I just did. Matthew 19:21. If that command was not for all, then why was all of Israel selling all they had in preparation for Christ's return?

Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. - Acts 2:44-45 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:44-45&version=NKJV



Was the rich man preaching the gospel with Christ? No, so there goes that argument.



"Sell all you have" seems pretty universal to me.



See above.



I'm not the one refusing to obey absolutely everything Jesus said.



Jesus said to sell all you have, and give it to the poor, and then follow Him. You have not sold all you have.



I'm not the one who is refusing to do what Jesus said.



No. They are not, nor do they sin for not doing so.



I clearly have a better understanding than you, GT. You don't even seem to know what it means to obey everything Jesus said.



Thank you for the beautiful scripture verse GT, one which was addressed to Israel (and only Israel) prior to Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

You preach that we cannot obey Jesus and that we do not have to.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You preach that we cannot obey Jesus and that we do not have to.
I teach that we are to love God and love our neighbors, AFTER we believe in Him, because love fulfills the righteous requirements of the law.

We cannot be made righteous by the law by keeping the law, because no one can keep all the laws perfectly, except the One who nailed the Law to the Cross, but we can fulfill the righteous requirements of the law through love, being spiritually minded, and not carnally minded. The law is of the flesh, but love, grace, etc, is of the spirit.

See Romans 8.
 

Rosenritter

New member
I don't have the energy to resurrect stale posts right now. I'm taking liberty of massive truncation for readability's sake:

Is there more than One coming?
Of course not, there is one coming, the Father, who comes by means of his son, thus scripture makes mention on Jesus coming too.

... you do realize that sounds a bit contradictory, and against the whole sense of what was being said and why? Let's go back a bit further to one of the most ancient prophets:

Job 19:25-26
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

That sounds an awfully lot like Job is saying that his redeemer is currently alive, his redeemer shall physically stand upon the earth, and be visible by those with actual eyes to see. Thus even according to the prophet Job, the Son of God is God, God shall be manifest in the flesh.

a) For I know that my redeemer liveth.
b) and he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
c) yet in my flesh shall I see God

Job didn't have the name Jesus as of yet, but you yourself identified it is Jesus who shall stand in the latter day upon the earth, visible to the naked eye of the normal man in the flesh. If you honor the Old Testament as scripture, then shouldn't the scripture itself be forming our preconceptions and assumptions, not the dictates of Watchtower theology (or any theological system?)


You keep imposing your own set of rules an regulations on scripture that are simply baseless, in what sense is Jesus being a high priest in Abraham day (according to you) different to him being high priest today?

One priesthood is on a basis to only a specific people (the priesthood of Levi) and the other is without the Law and Old Covenant (the priesthood of Melchizedek.) One priest was a priest on a rather exclusive basis, known only to one or two (Sarah and Abraham) the other is a priest on the most inclusive basis imagined for all who ever lived and shall live.

You say Jesus was not that type of god mentioned in Psalms 82:1 yet that is the very type of god Jesus said he was when defending himself, see John 10:32-36.

The Psalm speaks of two types of Gods: God, who judges among the gods. Jesus it the judge, not the one being judged. Jesus is God with capital G in that context, not a lowercase g. Had he lowered himself to lowercase g the Jews would not have picked up rocks to stone him.

Let's remain focused now, my question here does not involve Jesus. Is a copy of the declaration of independence the first initial written declaration of Independence?


Your question is attempting to force "physical copy" as the definition of the true essence of a thing, which is clearly inapplicable when applying to the question of whether Jesus is truly God manifest in the flesh.

If I magically made a image of you, who was exactly the same as you, you watched me make him through a window in a locked room with 24 video surveillance so we could be sure the two of you didn't get mixed up, not 10 seconds after I created him with him still being tied down to the table I created him on I killed him have I killed you, the person who just saw me kill your image or have I killed your image? Remember I'm not asking you who I killed from your point of view if you were there, but rather, who did I actually kill from a factual point of view, you or the copy.

You keep saying "image" so my answer is the same. You killed me in your example. If you were to say that this was just a look-alike, a doppleganger, or something that was not me and different from me, then your answer would be different. It doesn't matter how many times you keep asking the question again while unchanging that one most important part of the question.

From what you said , You believe that Jesus being the "image of God" means that Jesus is the image of the spirit God in human form, correct me if I'm wrong. The only problem is that that's not what the verse says, the verse simply states Jesus is the "image of God". This was written after Jesus ascension after it states Jesus "became a spirit", nowhere else other than Hebrews 1:3 does it further define how Jesus is the image of God. According to Hebrews 1:3 it is not in regards to an attributional image as you seem to claim but to his exact being.

Your responses seem to depend on isolating the scriptures from one another. When Jesus chides his disciples for asking "Show us the Father" and replies "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" passages like these combine with each other, like the way a multi-threaded rope gains strength and durability.

You know that the statement in Col 1:15 isn't about attempting to limit or differentiate Jesus from God, but rather the opposite.

No its not, but that's exactly what it does, it differentiates Jesus from God. Anything that is an image of something cannot be the that it images otherwise it wouldn't be an image. You can't run away from word definitions.

It seems to me that from a Hebrew mindset, the image of the invisible is more real than the invisible. That is why it says God was manifest in the flesh. That is why Job says that God shall stand upon the earth, and that he will see him with his very eyes. That is why John chose the name "the Word" and emphasized that the Word isn't just similar to God, the Word IS God. That is why Jesus purposely picks the most exclusive names and titles of God and assigns them to himself, that is why even the angels of God worship Jesus, that is why we are told that Jesus created all things, and without him nothing that was created was made.

WORD definitions you say? We are talking about the definitions of the WORD, and the WORD is defined as God. Gospel of John, 1st chapter.
 

lifeisgood

New member
You admit that your doctrine is not understandable. Since you cannot explain it, then you cannot defend it.

I have explained what I understand the Bible to say. The Bible says that God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; that is, if you want to see it. If you do not want to see it, then that is all of your own.

If (notice the if) you, gt, say to me that you totally and completely comprehend our God, I would say you are lying.

BTW: God does not need my defending. He defends Himself all by Himself. Thank you very much.
 

Rosenritter

New member
The Bible proclaims the Triunity of God in Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our Eloheem[PLURAL] is one[SINGULAR] Jehovah.

The Bible proclaims the Triunity of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
It is all there for all who want to see to see.

If Eloheem was meant to be interpreted in the plural in that passage, then why are the pronouns singular? If it meant "but really three" then it could have said "is really three" and as this was given as definition, this would be the place you'd expect to find such a statement.

Even if we were to accept that such a word had some mystery of being plural, it says nothing about three-ness, and could just as easily be applied to two, four, eight, or sixty-four.
 

lifeisgood

New member
If Eloheem was meant to be interpreted in the plural in that passage, then why are the pronouns singular? If it meant "but really three" then it could have said "is really three" and as this was given as definition, this would be the place you'd expect to find such a statement.

Even if we were to accept that such a word had some mystery of being plural, it says nothing about three-ness, and could just as easily be applied to two, four, eight, or sixty-four.

It is for those who do not believe what the Bible says to keep on pulling their hairs.
 

Rosenritter

New member
I'll provide you with a scripture that says Jesus is an Archangel if you can show me a scripture that states God is a trinity.

You're not going to find the word trinity in the bible, you will find the word archangel. However, the instance of the word archangel shows doesn't point Jesus as being the archangel, but being introduced by the archangel. The archangel voice shouts, and the returning King enters. Does a returning King introduce himself?

Hebrews also tells us in no uncertain terms that Jesus is no angel. An archangel seems to be understood as an angel by everyone except Jehovah's Witnesses apparently, seemingly for the purpose of saving the "Jesus is an archangel doctrine." After all, who would say that an archenemy is not an enemy, or an archnemesis is not a nemesis? Unless you demand a peculiar definition of the word for this isolated instance, Jesus is no angel, archangel, or otherwise.

There are only two classes of beings: created, and uncreated. God is uncreated. Jesus created all things that were created. That leaves Jesus as God.
 

NWL

Active member
You honestly don't want to know.
You prefer Jesus is Michael the Archangel, which the Bible, by the way, does not teach.

Hey if the bible teaches the trinity I want to know it. I'm just have a hard time believing it when people like you lie stating the scriptures teach it and then go ahead and quote verses like Matt 28:19 which simply mentions the Father son and HS in a single verse and nothing else.

Stop pretending that you're not showing me because "I don't want to know" and just be truthful with yourself, you won't show me because you can't, its been admitted by literally hundreds of trinitarian scholars for centuries that the bible doesn't explicitly teach the trinity, this is an undeniable fact and is the reason you can't answer my question.
 

NWL

Active member
You're not going to find the word trinity in the bible, you will find the word archangel. However, the instance of the word archangel shows doesn't point Jesus as being the archangel, but being introduced by the archangel. The archangel voice shouts, and the returning King enters. Does a returning King introduce himself?

Hebrews also tells us in no uncertain terms that Jesus is no angel. An archangel seems to be understood as an angel by everyone except Jehovah's Witnesses apparently, seemingly for the purpose of saving the "Jesus is an archangel doctrine." After all, who would say that an archenemy is not an enemy, or an archnemesis is not a nemesis? Unless you demand a peculiar definition of the word for this isolated instance, Jesus is no angel, archangel, or otherwise.

There are only two classes of beings: created, and uncreated. God is uncreated. Jesus created all things that were created. That leaves Jesus as God.

Jesus did not create all things that were created since he didn't create himself. As mentioned in our previous discussions Jesus is the firstborn of creation, to be firstborn of a group you need to be part of that group to be firstborn in it, thus Jesus is part of creation (col 1:15). Jesus created all things other than himself, "all things" when used in scripture doesn't encompass the obvious.

The writer in Hebrews is denying that Jesus isn't an Angel he's doing the exact opposite he's highlighting that Jesus is an Angel hence the comparisons made in the beginning of the chapter.
 
Last edited:

Rosenritter

New member
Jesus did not create all things that were created since he didn't create himself. As mentioned in our previous discussions Jesus is the firstborn of creation, to be firstborn of a group you need to be part of that group to be firstborn in it, thus Jesus is part of creation (col 1:15). Jesus created all things other than himself, "all things" when used in scripture doesn't encompass the obvious.

The writer in Hebrews is denying that Jesus is an Angel he's doing the exact opposite he's highlighting that Jesus is an Angel hence the comparisons made in the beginning of the chapter.

Your second part doesn't make grammatical sense (I think a not is missing somewhere) but as to the first part, we are specifically told that Jesus, the Word, created all things. This has been posted in black and white quite a few times already.

And as already addressed, in a post you have already replied (partially?) towards, "firstborn of creation" was a Jewish term for the LORD Creator God, thus its term applied to Christ was Paul's affirmation that Jesus was God, not the denial, and placed in terms that the Jew would understand and relate towards. You have a Jehovah's Witness background, not the Jewish background, thus it helps to understand what the authors meant when they wrote a thing, rather than applying one's own lens as the final word.

You should be able to find reference to this in the Clarke commentary, if you don't want to go digging back through old posts.

* Why fight so hard against what is made so obvious from so many different angles?

Act 9:4-5
(4) And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
(5) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Does the Jehovah's Witness teaching allow for Jesus to have ascended to heaven? Who was speaking here if not Jesus? Paul may not have meant "LORD" when he said "Lord" in Acts 9:5, but would Paul have expected to have received a message from heaven from any thing other than God or an angel? Do you allow for anyone else to have ascended to heaven?
 

NWL

Active member
Is there more than One coming?


... you do realize that sounds a bit contradictory, and against the whole sense of what was being said and why?

Well its not. Jesus comes in the name of his father and does all things for his Father. Jesus coming is merely an instruction from and for the Father. The same way God judges through Jesus (Acts 17:31), is a saviour through Jesus (John 3:17) and gives life through Jesus (1 thess 4:14) even though scripture states Jesus is judge, saviour and life giver, the Father comes through Jesus.

Let's go back a bit further to one of the most ancient prophets Job 19:25-26

(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

That sounds an awfully lot like Job is saying that his redeemer is currently alive, his redeemer shall physically stand upon the earth, and be visible by those with actual eyes to see. Thus even according to the prophet Job, the Son of God is God, God shall be manifest in the flesh.

a) For I know that my redeemer liveth.
b) and he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
c) yet in my flesh shall I see God

Job didn't have the name Jesus as of yet, but you yourself identified it is Jesus who shall stand in the latter day upon the earth, visible to the naked eye of the normal man in the flesh. If you honor the Old Testament as scripture, then shouldn't the scripture itself be forming our preconceptions and assumptions, not the dictates of Watchtower theology (or any theological system?)

Job seeing God in Job 19:26 was not in relation to seeing Jesus or people seeing Jesus. Job was talking about seeing God, which he did when looking at Job 45:5 after the account where Jehovah spoke to him out of a windstorm, "My ears have heard about you, But now I do see you with my eyes". Job 19:25 is talking about the prospect of being redeemed through Jesus in future time but it isn't calling Jesus God by v26. Jesus was no doubt alive at the time Job said this since he existed as God first creation.


One priesthood is on a basis to only a specific people (the priesthood of Levi) and the other is without the Law and Old Covenant (the priesthood of Melchizedek.) One priest was a priest on a rather exclusive basis, known only to one or two (Sarah and Abraham) the other is a priest on the most inclusive basis imagined for all who ever lived and shall live.

The Psalm speaks of two types of Gods: God, who judges among the gods. Jesus it the judge, not the one being judged. Jesus is God with capital G in that context, not a lowercase g. Had he lowered himself to lowercase g the Jews would not have picked up rocks to stone him.

Then Jesus words made no sense.

Again the Judges in Psalms 82:1 is not in relation to gods who are being judged but rather gods who God judges amongst, it seems you keep failing to see this plain point. The gods were in relation to divinely appointed Israelite judges who were appointed by god to Judge the nation of Israel. You for some reason keep saying God was judging these judges. See Exodus 18:21, 22.

The Jews were accusing and charging Jesus for blasphemy, "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself God (a god).”. Please tell me how does Jesus responding back "Is it not written in your Law, I said: “You are gods”" answer the charge for blasphemy.

The Jews charge: We are stoning you for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself God.
Jesus answers: Is it not written You are gods

How does Jesus answer answer the charge for blasphemy when we understand the theos in John 10:33 to mean God with a capital G? It doesn't! Jesus words make no sense, he doesn't answer the charge they put to him, how does Jesus calling them gods defend the claim that they called him God capital G?

However when we change the word thoes to "a god" which is 100% grammatically doable, we have this:

The Jews charge: We are stoning you for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god
Jesus answers: Is it not written You are gods

This makes sense, the Jews accuse him of blaspheming because he likened himself to a god and Jesus turns their argument on them by highlighting that they too are gods. Jesus here answers the charge. Jesus words make no sense unless you see the thoes in John 10:33 as "a god"

You keep saying "image" so my answer is the same. You killed me in your example. If you were to say that this was just a look-alike, a doppleganger, or something that was not me and different from me, then your answer would be different. It doesn't matter how many times you keep asking the question again while unchanging that one most important part of the question.

You're clearly evading the quesiton, we both know what the answer is. You merely know the implications answering it truthfully will bring. I get how your trying to be smart by claiming it is you, even though it isn't since its a copy of you, but it doesn't work in the real world

Your responses seem to depend on isolating the scriptures from one another. When Jesus chides his disciples for asking "Show us the Father" and replies "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" passages like these combine with each other, like the way a multi-threaded rope gains strength and durability.

Your completely correct, that why when Jesus said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" in John 14:10 we should consider the context, John 14:1 states "believe God; believe also in me". Jesus spoke of himself as seperate as God the Father in v1, nine verses later he states that he is literally God the Father, does that make sense considering what he said in v1? No. Jesus statement found in v10 is in regards Jesus actions and words, remember he clearly states "The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works."Since Jesus Jesus words and actions are merely the Father words and actions as Jesus obeys the Father "to see the Son is to see the Father".

You know that the statement in Col 1:15 isn't about attempting to limit or differentiate Jesus from God, but rather the opposite.


God is not manifest in the flesh, remember not everyone see the corrupt KJV as inspired as you do.

It seems to me that from a Hebrew mindset, the image of the invisible is more real than the invisible. That is why it says God was manifest in the flesh. That is why Job says that God shall stand upon the earth, and that he will see him with his very eyes. That is why John chose the name "the Word" and emphasized that the Word isn't just similar to God, the Word IS God. That is why Jesus purposely picks the most exclusive names and titles of God and assigns them to himself, that is why even the angels of God worship Jesus, that is why we are told that Jesus created all things, and without him nothing that was created was made.

the image of the invisible is more real than the invisible??? This makes no sense. Again if Jesus is the image of God, and God is invisible then Jesus too is invisible, if Jesus isn't invisible like God then he isn't his image since image are meant to reflect.

WORD definitions you say? We are talking about the definitions of the WORD, and the WORD is defined as God. Gospel of John, 1st chapter.

There are a few possibilities that are grammatically sound, one of them is that the word was "a god" in John 1:1b, this is undeniable. Jesus cannot be the God whom he was with, thus contextually, the rendering "the word was God" is not sound.
 

NWL

Active member
Your second part doesn't make grammatical sense (I think a not is missing somewhere) but as to the first part, we are specifically told that Jesus, the Word, created all things. This has been posted in black and white quite a few times already.

Thanks for pointing that out, I've correct it in my OP. Yes Jesus created all things, but as mentioned "all things" when used in scripture does encompass the obvious.

For example we have this verse in Hebrews 2:7,8 talking about the fall of man(adam) and then the exaltation of Jesus in his place, "You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone."

In the above text God subjected "all things" under man and left absolutely nothing NOT subject to him. Using your own argument that would mean that the angels were subject to man and it could even be said God himself was subject to man since God left nothing NOT subject to him. Is this the case though, plainly no. Why, because it goes without saying that the Angels and God were not to be included in the "all things".

Lets imagine the Jews and Christians in Jesus day thought that Jesus was in fact the first thing created by God and then they read that God created all things through Jesus. Would they trip up and think that Jesus created himself? No, since anyone with a bit of foreknowledge would know it goes without saying that Jesus himself wouldn't be included in the "all things" the same way the angels and God himself were't included in the "all things" in Hebrews 2:7,8.

I have to ask you, were the angels or God subject to man according to Hebrews 2:7,8 when stating that God subject all things under him and left nothing NOT subject to him? If not then why not.

You have a Jehovah's Witness background, not the Jewish background, thus it helps to understand what the authors meant when they wrote a thing, rather than applying one's own lens as the final word.
You should be able to find reference to this in the Clarke commentary, if you don't want to go digging back through old posts.

I read his exegesis, he holds to the argument that Jesus being the firstborn relates to a preeminence. However he does not tackle the issue of usage and definition of the word "firstborn" along with the baggage it brings. His arguments does nothing and answers nothing in relation to the point I made, namely that to be called firstborn of a group you need to be part of that group. This is undeniable and cannot be refuted. Jesus is part of creation based on the sole fact that he's called the firstborn in it. We don't even need to getting in the meaning of prōtotokos/firstborn for this argument to win.

* Why fight so hard against what is made so obvious from so many different angles?

I feel the same way.

Act 9:4-5
(4) And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
(5) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Does the Jehovah's Witness teaching allow for Jesus to have ascended to heaven? Who was speaking here if not Jesus? Paul may not have meant "LORD" when he said "Lord" in Acts 9:5, but would Paul have expected to have received a message from heaven from any thing other than God or an angel? Do you allow for anyone else to have ascended to heaven?

I don't get your point here? JW's do not deny Jesus ascended into heaven, we believe he's in heaven right now. In the account you cited Jesus is speaking to Paul. Are you trying to say only angels and God can speak to men from heaven? If so could you provide me a scripture that limits heavenly communication to earth to that of either God or angels.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Job seeing God in Job 19:26 was not in relation to seeing Jesus or people seeing Jesus. Job was talking about seeing God, which he did when looking at Job 45:5 after the account where Jehovah spoke to him out of a windstorm, "My ears have heard about you, But now I do see you with my eyes". Job 19:25 is talking about the prospect of being redeemed through Jesus in future time but it isn't calling Jesus God by v26. Jesus was no doubt alive at the time Job said this since he existed as God first creation.

... You are disjoining verses 25 and 26 from each other? The prophet said:

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:"

The obvious implication is that Job will see God his redeemer when he starts upon the earth at the latter day. Your construction seems a bit forced. Why would Job speak with a vague "he" without then defining who "he" refers to?

Here's an example (I will pick a name at random):
I know that my wife is alive, and two years from now she will arrive in this country, and with my very own eyes I shall see Eve!

Your argument essentially is that people speak this way, and that "wife" and "she" would mean someone other than Eve?
 

Rosenritter

New member
Then Jesus words made no sense.
Perfect sense if you allow for everything that Jesus said to fall into place, without being so anxious to deny the obvious implications.

Again the Judges in Psalms 82:1 is not in relation to gods who are being judged but rather gods who God judges amongst, it seems you keep failing to see this plain point. The gods were in relation to divinely appointed Israelite judges who were appointed by god to Judge the nation of Israel. You for some reason keep saying God was judging these judges. See Exodus 18:21, 22.

Jesus did say that the scripture said "ye are gods" referring to the Pharisees. His context is not about Israelite judges, but had application to the then and there.

The Jews were accusing and charging Jesus for blasphemy, "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself God (a god).”. Please tell me how does Jesus responding back "Is it not written in your Law, I said: “You are gods”" answer the charge for blasphemy.

Read the Psalm that he is quoting. The are the gods of the 82nd Psalm. God judges among the gods, but they are corrupt, but they shall die like men, but that God will inherit all nations. Did you forget that Jesus declared himself the judge of the quick and the dead? Jesus is the GOD of the 82nd Psalm. They are the gods that will die like men.

How does it answer the charge of blasphemy? GOD HIMSELF is IMMUNE TO CHARGES OF BLASPHEMY!

The Jews charge: We are stoning you for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself God.
Jesus answers: Is it not written You are gods

How does Jesus answer answer the charge for blasphemy when we understand the theos in John 10:33 to mean God with a capital G? It doesn't! Jesus words make no sense, he doesn't answer the charge they put to him, how does Jesus calling them gods defend the claim that they called him God capital G?

You must have a mental block here. Jesus declared himself God, and THAT'S why they wanted to stone him. Did you miss that part?
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The word made flesh is NOT the same as God in the flesh.


Joh 1:1
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Ti 3:16
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

It seems to be the same over here.

People infer that Jesus is the God Himself in a human body.

Such is not so.

LA
 
Top