JayJayDee & Katzpur: Who is God and What Does He Tell us About Himself?

I believe that God is Yahweh, (or Jehovah) the Father, who was the one true God of ancient Israel. I believe that he is still the same God that was worshipped in ancient times and that he is, and always has been, one entity and not part of a triune godhead.

As to his name....

Exodus 3:13-15: When Moses was first commissioned to liberate Israel from bondage in Egypt.... "Moses said to the [true] God: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?”  At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” [Heb., ה ר ה (’Eh·yeh′ ’Asher′ ’Eh·yeh&#8242 comes from the Heb. verb ha·yah′, “become; prove to be.” Here ’Eh·yeh′ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.]
And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”  Then God said once more to Moses:
“This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation." (NWT. See also Lev 11:45; Isa 12:3-5; 42:8)

Most modern Bible translations follow the Jewish custom of substituting the divine name with 'adonai' or 'elohim', meaning "Lord" or "God" instead of translating God's personal name where it appears in the Hebrew text.

Since the Bible sets forth the sacred will of the Sovereign Lord of the universe, it would be an affront to his majesty and authority, to omit or hide his unique name, which plainly occurs in the Hebrew text nearly 7,000 times as יהוה (YHWH).
For this reason, I use a translation that places God's name back where it belongs. Both the ASV and the NWT restore the divine name into the main body of their text.

When Jesus came to earth, he did not change God's identity. Jesus worshipped Jehovah too. He was sent by God to redeem mankind, but the son is not God.

Even when he returned to heaven, he still referred to Jehovah "my God".

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name." (Rev 3:12)

I believe that the Jesus is 'the image of his Father'. He is what the Bible calls him, "the son of God" (Matt 13:13, 14) and was "with" God "in the beginning" as John 1:1 says.

"In the beginning was 'the' Word, and 'the' Word was with God, and the Word was God." (KJV)
Since there is not punctuation or capital letters in the Greek it literally reads, "in beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word".

The use of the definite article "the" is what tells us who was God and who was with God and was god-like.

Jump to John 1:18 and you will see this..."No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

The word rendered "son" in verse 18 is the same word rendered "God" in the first verse.

If both of these verses were rendered consistently, then John 1:1 should read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was (the) Son."

OR ..."No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten god, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

Since Almighty God cannot be “begotten”, but his son was, the inconsistency confuses the true identity of God with his created son. (Col 1:15-17; Rev 3:14)

In his prophesy concerning the Messiah, Isaiah calls him “Mighty God” (not Almighty) and “Prince of Peace”. (A prince is the son of a king.) He is also called “Eternal Father” (and we know that the son is NOT the Father, so the meaning of this expression is not saying that he is God.) (Isa 9:6, 7) Reasoning on what the rest of the scriptures say, reveals that all is not as it first appears.

There is no definite article "the" in connection with the second use of "God" in John 1:1. That means that one is "THE" God and the other is also “a” god (literally a “mighty one”).

Strong's Greek: 3588.

The title “god” is not exclusive to the Father. (1 Cor 8:5, 6)

It is the Word who was "with [the] God" who became flesh, not "the" God himself. He was an "only begotten son from a father".(John1:14).

That is what I believe about the identity of "the only true God", which is what Jesus called his Father in John 17:3.

What is your view Katzpur? :trampo:

JayJayDee said:

I believe that God is Yahweh, (or Jehovah) the Father, who was the one true God of ancient Israel. I believe that he is still the same God that was worshipped in ancient times and that he is, and always has been, one entity and not part of a triune godhead.

Click to expand...

So you're not a trinitarian either? Cool! We already have one thing in common! Your profile doesn't say so, but from what I'm reading in this post, I'm guessing you are probably a Jehovah's Witness. Is that correct?

As to his name....

Exodus 3:13-15: When Moses was first commissioned to liberate Israel from bondage in Egypt.... "Moses said to the [true] God: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?”  At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” [Heb., ה ר ה (’Eh·yeh′ ’Asher′ ’Eh·yeh&#8242 comes from the Heb. verb ha·yah′, “become; prove to be.” Here ’Eh·yeh′ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.]
And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”  Then God said once more to Moses:
“This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation." (NWT. See also Lev 11:45; Isa 12:3-5; 42:8)

Most modern Bible translations follow the Jewish custom of substituting the divine name with 'adonai' or 'elohim', meaning "Lord" or "God" instead of translating God's personal name where it appears in the Hebrew text.

Since the Bible sets forth the sacred will of the Sovereign Lord of the universe, it would be an affront to his majesty and authority, to omit or hide his unique name, which plainly occurs in the Hebrew text nearly 7,000 times as יהוה (YHWH).
For this reason, I use a translation that places God's name back where it belongs. Both the ASV and the NWT restore the divine name into the main body of their text.

Click to expand...

Okay, here's where we differ -- and I hope I can explain myself adequately. Let me just start with a quick overview of our belief in "the Godhead."

Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.

We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.

Most Christians also use the words “co-equal” and “co-eternal” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

The third member of the Godhead is the Holy Ghost. Unlike the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit only. It is by virtue of this quality that He is able to both fill the universe and dwell in our hearts. It is through the Holy Ghost that God communicates to mankind. We come to understand spiritual truths through the witnessing of the Holy Ghost, who communicates with us on a spiritual plane. It is through Him that we come to know the Father and the Son.

So, like you, we do not believe that the Father and the Son are one and the same, or simply two different "manifestations" of the same divine being. However, if I'm understanding you correctly, you refer to God (meaning "the Father") as "Jehovah." We Mormons refer to Him as "Elohim." We believe that the individual known as "Jesus Christ" during His mortality was known pre-mortally as "Jehovah." In other words, we see all of the references to Jehovah in the Old Testament as referring to the same individual as came to be known after His birth on earth as "Jesus Christ." We do see an occasional reference to God (i.e. to the one we call "Elohim") in the Old Testament, but we believe that even prior to His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ (to us, "Jehovah") was His Father's agent with respect to the earth and all that transpired on it.

(Note: As usual, I'm being too long-winded. I've got to continue my response in a second post.)

When Jesus came to earth, he did not change God's identity. Jesus worshipped Jehovah too. He was sent by God to redeem mankind, but the son is not God.

Click to expand...

Even when he returned to heaven, he still referred to Jehovah "my God".

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name." (Rev 3:12)

Click to expand...

As the background material I provided shows, we also believe that Jesus Christ's Father was also His "God." How can that be denied when He clearly refers to Him as "my Father" but also as "my God"? I can't count the number of trinitarians who insist that Jesus referred to His Father as "my God" only when He was here on earth, but that when He ascended into heaven to be with Him, they somehow became a single entity again -- each one "co-equal" to the other.

I believe that the Jesus is 'the image of his Father'. He is what the Bible calls him, "the son of God" (Matt 13:13, 14) and was "with" God "in the beginning" as John 1:1 says.

Click to expand...

"In the beginning was 'the' Word, and 'the' Word was with God, and the Word was God." (KJV)
Since there is not punctuation or capital letters in the Greek it literally reads, "in beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word".

The use of the definite article "the" is what tells us who was God and who was with God and was god-like.

Jump to John 1:18 and you will see this..."No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

The word rendered "son" in verse 18 is the same word rendered "God" in the first verse.

If both of these verses were rendered consistently, then John 1:1 should read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was (the) Son."

OR ..."No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten god, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

Since Almighty God cannot be “begotten”, but his son was, the inconsistency confuses the true identity of God with his created son. (Col 1:15-17; Rev 3:14)

In his prophesy concerning the Messiah, Isaiah calls him “Mighty God” (not Almighty) and “Prince of Peace”. (A prince is the son of a king.) He is also called “Eternal Father” (and we know that the son is NOT the Father, so the meaning of this expression is not saying that he is God.) (Isa 9:6, 7) Reasoning on what the rest of the scriptures say, reveals that all is not as it first appears.

There is no definite article "the" in connection with the second use of "God" in John 1:1. That means that one is "THE" God and the other is also “a” god (literally a “mighty one&#8221.

Click to expand...

I have heard that interpretation before. I would have to say that it fairly closely resembles mine. However, I would probably interpret John 1:1 this way: "In the beginning was the Word (i.e. Jehovah aka Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God (i.e. with Elohim) and the Word was also known as God."

The title “god” is not exclusive to the Father. (1 Cor 8:5, 6)

Click to expand...

It is the Word who was "with [the] God" who became flesh, not "the" God himself. He was an "only begotten son from a father".(John1:14).

Click to expand...

That is what I believe about the identity of "the only true God", which is what Jesus called his Father in John 17:3.
What is your view Katzpur? :trampo:

Click to expand...

I'd say we agree on a number of points. We agree that the Father is not the Son, and that, in my opinion is huge. We agree that the Father pre-existed the Son, because He (the Father) begat His Son. Nothing that is begotten exists prior to the time it is begotten. We disagree on who the name "Jehovah" is referring to. You believe it is referring to the Father and that it is the Father who is being spoken of in the Old Testament. I believe it is referring to the Son and that it is the pre-mortal Son who is being spoken of in the Old Testament.

So now I have a couple of questions for you...

First off, could we refer to God ("Elohim" to me and "Jehovah" to you) simply as "the Father" and as Jesus Christ (who is also "Jehovah" to me) as "the Son" so that we'll always be on the same page with respect to who we're referring to? If that's okay with you, here are my questions...

1. If the Son was with the Father in the beginning, when exactly was He begotten? If He was begotten at His conception, can we really say that He even existed "in the beginning" at all?

2. I'd like to explore the idea of the "image" of God. Would you mind attempting to provide a definition of the word "image" and then using the word in two or three different sentences to illustrate its use (sentences not pertaining to God, but to other ways in which you might use the word)? What do you believe the Bible means when it says that we were created "in the image of God"? If the Son was said to be "the express image of His [Father's] person," what does that tell you about the Father, in light of the definition you provided?

Thanks in advance! I'm looking forward to our discussion.

This is a great start to the discussion Katzpur, thank you for your well reasoned response....and yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You will notice that I did not say "I'm a Jehovah's Witness", this is because we do not see our name as a label for simply another "Christian" denomination, but a descriptive title for what we actually are...witnesses for the Most High God, Jehovah. (Isa 43:10; Psalm 83:18KJV)
When someone knocks on the door, they'll know it's either JW's or Mormons....right?

May I ask if you were raised in the LDS church or did you choose it?

I was raised in the Anglican church but it was empty and devoid of real brotherly love. Their teachings never made sense to me and I was not well received when I asked the hard questions. So I went on a quest to find the true God and his people.

They ended up being in the last place I expected to find them.

So we both accept that there is no trinity, but LDS nevertheless believe in a godhead? By accepting that the holy spirit is a "ghost", you believe that it is an entity? Father, son and holy 'ghost' are then a trinity or a three in one "godhead" but they are not co-equal or co-eternal...is that correct?
It's a trinity but not as Christendom teaches it?

Just as a side point, the word "ghost" is derived from a German word "geist" meaning "spirit". No modern translation uses the word "ghost" because it is not a correct rendering of the word "spirit".
Do LDS use only the KJV or are they free to use any translation of the scriptures?
Is the Book of Mormon more important than the Bible? Or is it regarded as scripture?

Katzpur said:

if I'm understanding you correctly, you refer to God (meaning "the Father") as "Jehovah." We Mormons refer to Him as "Elohim." We believe that the individual known as "Jesus Christ" during His mortality was known pre-mortally as "Jehovah." In other words, we see all of the references to Jehovah in the Old Testament as referring to the same individual as came to be known after His birth on earth as "Jesus Christ." We do see an occasional reference to God (i.e. to the one we call "Elohim") in the Old Testament, but we believe that even prior to His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ (to us, "Jehovah") was His Father's agent with respect to the earth and all that transpired on it.

Click to expand...

As to the name "Jehovah"...we believe that Jehovah was the God of ancient Israel. The one unique God who was Creator of heaven and earth. Moses wrote: : "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah". ( Deut 6:4 ASV) I don't see room for this to be the pre-human Jesus Christ.

When speaking about Jehovah, ’Elo·him′ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1)

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ’El Gib·bohr′, “Mighty God” (not ’El Shad·dai′ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1)

The title ’Elo·him′, when preceded by the definite article ha, gives the expression ha·’Elo·him′. This expression occurs 376 times in M. In 368 places it refers to the true God, Jehovah, and in 8 places it refers to other gods.
Zorell, p. 54, says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; a) האלהים ὁ θεός Ge 5:22; 6:9, 11; 17:18; 20:6; Ex 3:12; 19:17 and in several books written in prose; יהוה הוא האלהים ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”—Brackets his

There are four references to "Jehovah" found in the KJV, (Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Isa 12:2:26:4) even though the divine name YHWH was present almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew text. None of them appear to relate to Jesus.

When Jesus taught us to pray, he said "our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name".
The word "Elohim" is a title meaning "God"; it is not a personal name.

The KJV at psalm 83:18 names "Jehovah" as "the Most High over all the earth".
Jesus is never called "Almighty" or "the Most High". He is the "Word" or spokesman for his Father but I have never seen him called Jehovah.

Can you provide clear scriptural reference to any place where Jesus is called Jehovah?

For the sake of the discussion though, I will call God 'Father' and Jesus 'the Son', as you request.

1. If the Son was with the Father in the beginning, when exactly was He begotten? If He was begotten at His conception, can we really say that He even existed "in the beginning" at all?

Click to expand...

JW's believe that the designation "only begotten" refers to the fact that the Son was the first and only direct creation of his Father. Then the Father assigned the Son to fabricate all other things. Only the Father is the Creator; the Son was the instrument or agency that He used to bring about creation. (Col 1:15, 16) We do not believe it has anything to do with his human conception. He is also called "firstborn" which is a word used in scripture of a firstborn offspring of either man or animals....the first one born to a mother. It is true that Jesus was the firstborn in his Jewish family, but it was not the first time he had been brought into existence. He was at his Father's side throughout the entire creative process....as "a Master Craftsman" (Prov 8:22, 30; 1 Cor 1:24) His human birth simply saw his life transferred into the womb of an earthly woman.

"In the beginning" refers to the beginning of creation. Since the Father is an eternal being, (i.e. he has as much time behind him as there is in front of him) He had no beginning. The apostle John calls the Son, "the beginning of the creation by God". (Rev 3:14) Logically then, the son was himself the beginning of all creation.

2. I'd like to explore the idea of the "image" of God. Would you mind attempting to provide a definition of the word "image" and then using the word in two or three different sentences to illustrate its use (sentences not pertaining to God, but to other ways in which you might use the word)? What do you believe the Bible means when it says that we were created "in the image of God"? If the Son was said to be "the express image of His [Father's] person," what does that tell you about the Father, in light of the definition you provided?

Click to expand...

When the Bible says that man is 'created in God's image', I don't believe that it can be a physical image because God is an invisible spirit. I believe that it has to do with his attributes. This is what separates us from the animals. Made in God's image means we have a moral sense; an inborn sense of fairness; we have spirituality and a deep need to worship our Creator. We also reflect our Father's creativity in art, poetry, literature and music. In architecture and sculpture, or appreciation for the natural world and it's creatures, we have an eye for beauty that touches us in wonderful ways. We are moved to thank the one responsible for it...are we not?

We have free will and intelligence, and the ability to plan for the future based solely on information processed by our minds and hearts.

The cardinal qualities of God are reflected to an extent even in sinful human nature. Man possesses the attributes of love, justice, wisdom and power, even though he cannot manifest them perfectly at present. God 'has' all these qualities in perfect balance, but He 'IS' love. He epitomizes all that love is. We can but try to imitate him.

"Agape" (love based on principle) is the kind of love that can be offered to even an enemy. We can learn these qualities by seeing them expressed and demonstrated by the Son when he was on earth. He said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"...how?

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high". (Heb 1:3 NASB)

When we look in a mirror we see an image of ourselves. We are not the image but it represents us. That is how I see Jesus being "the image" of his Father. He reflects his Father's personality and attitudes. His love and mercy were in perfect balance to his justice.

Is that what you wanted to know?

Back to you. I'm really enjoying the interchange. Till next time.....

Jay




.

JayJayDee said:

...yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You will notice that I did not say "I'm a Jehovah's Witness", this is because we do not see our name as a label for simply another "Christian" denomination, but a descriptive title for what we actually are...witnesses for the Most High God, Jehovah.... When someone knocks on the door, they'll know it's either JW's or Mormons....right?

Click to expand...

I'd say that between us, we pretty much have it covered, alright!

I'm curious as to what your response would be if you were to open your door to a couple of LDS missionaries. I know that the Jehovah's Witnesses probably drop by my place maybe about once a year. I have always found them to be very pleasant, but we have never actually gotten into a theological discussion. I know how I'd want to be treated if it was me knocking on doors, so I try to respond to them in a positive way. We usually just talk briefly and they offer me a Watchtower, which I accept. I may not always read every word, but I always read a few articles in it. I find that sometimes I agree with what it says and sometimes not. And yes, I did notice that you said you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses and not "a Jehovah's Witness." I had heard people put it that way before, and had always kind of wondered about it. Thanks for explaining.

So, if someone were to ask you, "Are Jehovahs Witnesses Christians?" what would your answer be? If someone were to ask, "Are you a Christian denomination?" would the answer be 'yes' or 'no,' or would it be necessary for you to elaborate to correctly answer the question? Mormons definitely believe themselves to be "Christians." We would also say that we are "a Christian denomination." We would not, however, say that we are "simply another Christian denomination," because we don't see all Christian denominations as being equally valid and operating under authority from God. If I had to explain the basis behind our existence, say this: We believe that as part of His mortal ministry, Jesus Christ established His Church here on earth. We believe that after His death and the deaths of His Apostles, men changed that Church. It fell into apostasy and He could no longer accept it as His. Finally, we believe that He personally re-established it in this day and age and that it exists today, teaching the same doctrines as were taught anciently and operating under the same authority as it did anciently.

May I ask if you were raised in the LDS church or did you choose it?

Click to expand...

Both. I was raised in it, but ultimately I also had to choose it. My parents were practicing members of the Church, but they never tried to make me feel afraid to question its beliefs. On the contrary, they encouraged me to question, and not just to accept everything I heard taught from the pulpit or in a Bible study, etc. class. Being a Jehovah's Witness, you obviously know how it is to have people misrepresent your beliefs -- and to continue to do so intentionally, even after you have corrected them. That's how it has always been for me as a Latter-day Saint. Over the many years I have been a member of the Church, I have encountered so much criticism about both my Church's history and its doctrines that I have been forced to critically examine the doctrines my Church teaches and to learn for myself whether I believe them to be true or not. So I would have to say that I chose to end up in the religion I was raised in, after having looked at it "by faith and also by reason."

What about you? How long have you been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and how old were you when you converted? How was your family with your decision?

So we both accept that there is no trinity, but LDS nevertheless believe in a godhead? Father, son and holy 'ghost' are then a trinity or a three in one "godhead" but they are not co-equal or co-eternal...is that correct?

Click to expand...

I would have to say "yes" and "no" to that. I'll try to explain... We do hold the Father to be supreme. We believe that Jesus Christ always has and always will acknowledge the supremacy of His Father, as His God. We also believe that the Father preceded the Son. So there was a time when the Father existed but the Son evidently did not. Here's where it gets a little confusing... The Bible says that "the Word" (Jesus) was "with God" in the beginning. We believe He was, but as I believe you pointed out, "in the beginning" refers to the beginning of our universe. God clearly existed prior to when He created our universe (or when His Son created it under His direction, as we believe was the case). So, we would probably say that there was a time before "the beginning," "before the clock started ticking," so to speak when God the Father spiritually begat His Son, Jesus Christ. By the time "the beginning" (as it is described in the Bible) came around, Jesus Christ was, in fact, "with God," His Father.

It's a trinity but not as Christendom teaches it?

Click to expand...

More or less. We do not accept the 4th and 5th century Creeds which mainstream Christianity adheres to. We do not believe God's spirit was present at the councils during which those creeds were defined, and we don't believe they are an accurate explanation of who God is or what His relationship to His Son is. We believe they are the work of men who, while possibly well-meaning, were nevertheless uninspired.

Do LDS use only the KJV or are they free to use any translation of the scriptures?

Click to expand...

We may own and refer to any translation we wish, but the Church leadership has always stressed that the KJV is the "official" translation accepted by the Church. We recognize that it's not perfect, but that's where living Apostles come in handy. :yes:

Is the Book of Mormon more important than the Bible? Or is it regarded as scripture?

Click to expand...

To us, that's almost like asking, "Is Matthew more important than Luke?" We believe that the Bible is the word of God but not that it is the sole word of God. We believe that God has said much more than has been assembled in that single volume and that He is still not through speaking to us. The Bible, of course, contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the New Testament being a witness to the divine mission of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is yet another testament of Jesus Christ. It is the history, both religious and secular of several groups of people whom we believe we led by God to the American continent in ancient times. By far the largest portion of the book describes two civilizations, the Nephites and the Lamanites, who were both descendents of the House of Israel, and who lived on this continent between about 600 B.C. and 400 A.D.

When Jesus Christ spoke to his followers in the Holy Land, He is recorded in the Gospel of John as having said, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” He also said that His own personal mission was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So who were the “other sheep” of whom He spoke, people who were evidently not living in the Holy Land but who were, at the same time, of the house of Israel? We believe they were the people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon. After Christ’s resurrection, he stayed among his Apostles and others for a time. But, according to the Book of Mormon, before He returned to heaven where He now awaits the time of His Second Coming, He visited the people of ancient America. He established His Church here, teaching exactly the same gospel He had taught in the Holy Land.

The Book of Mormon is an account of a 1000-year history of some of the people of ancient America, and includes a number of chapters which describe in some detail Jesus Christ’s ministry among those people. It does not contradict or supplant anything in the Bible. Rather it complements and clarifies many of the doctrines to which the Bible alludes but is not entirely clear. Its purpose is literally to prove the Bible to be true, and, as stated on the title page of the book is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”

Here's a passage from the Book of Mormon itself (2 Nephi 29:7-11) on the subject...

Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

More tomorrow, okay?

Apologies in advance for the length of this....it's easy to get carried away when the questions are interesting.....

Katzpur said:

I'd say that between us, we pretty much have it covered, alright!

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what your response would be if you were to open your door to a couple of LDS missionaries.

Click to expand...

I have on many occasions over the years and had some nice discussions as well. But I haven't seen them around our area for quite a few years now...not since two of them attended our meeting and stayed for some discussion afterwards. One of our Bible students was contacted by them and they invited her to one of their services. She agreed as long as they would accompany her to the meeting of JW's that afternoon. We never saw them again. Shame....they were really lovely young people and they had lots of questions....I'm sure, like you, they were just interested in understanding what we believe so the next time they encountered JW's they would have a better platform for their own witness.

I know that the Jehovah's Witnesses probably drop by my place maybe about once a year. I have always found them to be very pleasant, but we have never actually gotten into a theological discussion. I know how I'd want to be treated if it was me knocking on doors, so I try to respond to them in a positive way.

Click to expand...

That is very much appreciated. In our area, we call more regularly than that. It all depends on how large the area is that is allocated to each congregation and how many Witnesses there are in that area. "The harvest indeed is great but the workers are few". (Matt 9:37)
Many people actually welcome our visits and love to chat. Literally millions of people read our magazines each month and we have a new website that provides all the info on us and what we believe. jw.org
This seems to be the way it is now.....the information superhighway has overtaken all other methods of gathering information it seems.

So, if someone were to ask you, "Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians?" what would your answer be?

Click to expand...

Most definitely YES! But unlike the churches of Christendom, we acknowledge Jehovah as the only true God and his son Jesus as his anointed, sent forth to redeem mankind and provide the means to release them from the awful situation that Adam, his wife and the devil got us into in Eden. I believe that LDS have a somewhat different approach to that story. Perhaps we could discuss that also?

If someone were to ask, "Are you a Christian denomination?" would the answer be 'yes' or 'no,' or would it be necessary for you to elaborate to correctly answer the question?

Click to expand...

Yes, because we are not a breakaway from any particular denomination or faith, but we have completely separated from Christendom because we believe as you do, that the churches are the product of an apostasy that was foretold by Jesus and his apostles. "Wheat and weeds" were to grow together until the "harvest time", which we believe is the present time. This is the time when a separation was to take place...when the 'weeds' would be clearly distinguishable from the 'wheat'. (Matthew 7:15-23; 13:36-43; Acts 20:29) People from all faiths and cultures and backgrounds fill our ranks around the world.

Unlike the Mormons though, we each see our role as evangelizers. We have missionaries too, but each and every one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a preacher of the good news...not for a couple of years, but for the rest of our lives.

It was this "good news of the kingdom" that was to be "preached in all the inhabited earth" before the foretold "end" would come. It is "for a witness" to the world, informing them of God's intentions concerning the future. (Matt 24:14)

Just as the first Christians preached "house to house" searching for those who would listen, so all of JW's take that on as our Christian responsibility. (Acts 20:20; 5:42)

From the Mormon perspective, can you tell me what you teach as regards "the good news of God's kingdom"? Firstly, what is the 'good news' and what is 'God's Kingdom'?

If I had to explain the basis behind our existence, say this: We believe that as part of His mortal ministry, Jesus Christ established His Church here on earth. We believe that after His death and the deaths of His Apostles, men changed that Church. It fell into apostasy and He could no longer accept it as His.

Click to expand...

Yes, we share that belief as I mentioned.

Finally, we believe that He personally re-established it in this day and age and that it exists today, teaching the same doctrines as were taught anciently and operating under the same authority as it did anciently.

Click to expand...

We also believe this but in an opposite camp, it seems.

I was raised in it, but ultimately I also had to choose it. My parents were practicing members of the Church, but they never tried to make me feel afraid to question its beliefs. On the contrary, they encouraged me to question, and not just to accept everything I heard taught from the pulpit or in a Bible study, etc. class. Being a Jehovah's Witness, you obviously know how it is to have people misrepresent your beliefs -- and to continue to do so intentionally, even after you have corrected them.

Click to expand...

Yes! I sooo identify with that. There are 'hate' sites for JW's that make the most outrageous claims about us. They often target the one whom they believe to be our leader or prophet, Charles Taze Russell, but he is not any such thing. He was one man among many who undertook a thorough study of the Bible because the appalling spiritual state of the churches troubled them greatly. They were from different denominations but all had the same goal...to weed out the things that had crept in over the centuries, that clearly were in violation of what the scriptures taught. Russell was a gifted public speaker and debater so he took the lead in speaking. He dedicated his whole life to God's service and established Zion's Watchtower Tract Society. He funded the printing of Bible based literature (such as books and tracts) and the Watchtower magazine which has been in print continuously now since the late 1800's.

But people will believe what they want to believe....that is their choice.

The Jewish people were persuaded by their religious leaders to execute the Son of God...what hope have his disciples got?

That's how it has always been for me as a Latter-day Saint. Over the many years I have been a member of the Church, I have encountered so much criticism about both my Church's history and its doctrines that I have been forced to critically examine the doctrines my Church teaches and to learn for myself whether I believe them to be true or not. So I would have to say that I chose to end up in the religion I was raised in, after having looked at it "by faith and also by reason."

Click to expand...

Our children are likewise raised to love God but are encouraged to ask questions and reason on the answers. No one is born one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Each one must make their own choice to serve God and be baptized as a disciple of Christ.

We have little in the way of ritualistic worship. Our meetings are for Bible instruction and training for the ministry in which we all have a share. We are always learning and the school we all attend has no diplomas or degrees because we never graduate, (as if we somehow know it all.) Even our elders attend special schools to help them to be better shepherds. They are both students and teachers. It keeps everyone humble.
We have no paid clergy. All work and earn their own keep. All JW's are volunteers.

What about you? How long have you been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and how old were you when you converted? How was your family with your decision?

Click to expand...

I have been a Witness of Jehovah for over 40 years. I was in my late teens, early twenties when the hypocrisy of the church became a real stumbling block for me. I tried many denominations but found that they were all basically the same. I even tried the LDS in my search, but it was not solidly based on scripture and that is what I had set as my main criteria. God's people would use the Bible as the yardstick for everything.

I was not intending to even listen to JW's when they came to my door because I had heard all sorts of horrible stories about them. It was my sister who first listened to their message at the door and told me what they had shown her from the Bible. She was having a Bible study and encouraged me to have one too, just to check them out.

I was armed with a million questions and my hypocrisy meter set on "high"....but to my complete surprise, they answered every question from the Bible.....my own KJV. The more I learned, the more sense it made. I had an overwhelming feeling of finding "the truth"...at last!

Why did everyone bad mouth Jehovah's Witnesses, I wondered? They were just honest hard working people who loved God and wanted to share the good news about his kingdom and the blessings it will bring to faithful ones. I asked them why people hated them and they showed me.

John 15:19-21...
"If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you.  Bear in mind the word I said to you, A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also; if they have observed my word, they will observe yours also.  But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know him that sent me."

Being "no part of the world" to us means being no part of its politics, its immorality, its greed or corruption. The Bible says that satan is the god and ruler of this world, so we separate ourselves from all the things that the world accepts as "normal". (2 Cor 4:4; Luke 4:5-8)

Seeing the standards of decency and morality drop to almost non-existent, we try to remain in a Christian frame of mind in our speech and conduct, despite what is going on around us.

In a world where dishonesty is rampant, we are constantly bombarded with requests from employers for JW's to work for them because they know that we will not steal and we will try our best to give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. We will not work for dishonest people however, because we will not lie for them. We will not sacrifice our spiritual lives for the emptiness of material riches. (Matt 6:19-21)

We do not accept the 4th and 5th century Creeds which mainstream Christianity adheres to. We do not believe God's spirit was present at the councils during which those creeds were defined, and we don't believe they are an accurate explanation of who God is or what His relationship to His Son is. We believe they are the work of men who, while possibly well-meaning, were nevertheless uninspired.

Click to expand...

Agree with that. :yes:

We may own and refer to any translation we wish, but the Church leadership has always stressed that the KJV is the "official" translation accepted by the Church. We recognize that it's not perfect, but that's where living Apostles come in handy

Click to expand...

We use the NWT in our meetings (just for the sake of uniformity) but we are free to use any translation we like in our private study. The Watchtower often quotes from other translations. I use the online Biblegateway a lot.

We believe that the Bible is the word of God but not that it is the sole word of God. We believe that God has said much more than has been assembled in that single volume and that He is still not through speaking to us. The Bible, of course, contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the New Testament being a witness to the divine mission of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is yet another testament of Jesus Christ. It is the history, both religious and secular of several groups of people whom we believe we led by God to the American continent in ancient times. By far the largest portion of the book describes two civilizations, the Nephites and the Lamanites, who were both descendents of the House of Israel, and who lived on this continent between about 600 B.C. and 400 A.D.

Click to expand...

Is there archeological evidence for the existence of these civilizations? I have not heard of them outside the book of Mormon.

When Jesus Christ spoke to his followers in the Holy Land, He is recorded in the Gospel of John as having said, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” He also said that His own personal mission was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So who were the “other sheep” of whom He spoke, people who were evidently not living in the Holy Land but who were, at the same time, of the house of Israel? We believe they were the people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon.

Click to expand...

That is interesting because we have a completely different "take" on those scriptures.

The "lost sheep of the House of Israel", we believe, were the common Jewish people who had been alienated as undesirables by the prevailing religious sect of the Pharisees. These were the ones who had given up trying because the oral law had become a noose around their necks and impossible to keep. (Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46) Jesus came to refresh them and to take that load off their shoulders.

The "other sheep" we believe, are the ones who are not of the 'chosen ones'. Jesus chose those who would go to heaven with him to rule in his kingdom; (Rev 20:6) beginning with the 12 'foundation stones' who were his apostles, but they are a finite number, 144,000 'spiritual' Israel, made up of both Jewish and gentile Christians. (Gal 6:16; Rev 7:4)

John also saw an unnumbered "great multitude" standing before God's throne attributing salvation to God and the Lamb, Jesus Christ. These are Christian survivors of "the great tribulation" that is soon to come upon the earth. (Rev 7:9, 10, 13, 14; Matt 24:21) We believe that these are "the other sheep"; the ones who are also 'saved' but who will inherit the earth, as Jesus said. (Matt 5:5; Rev 21:3, 4)

After Christ’s resurrection, he stayed among his Apostles and others for a time. But, according to the Book of Mormon, before He returned to heaven where He now awaits the time of His Second Coming, He visited the people of ancient America. He established His Church here, teaching exactly the same gospel He had taught in the Holy Land.

Click to expand...

This is where I came unstuck in my investigation into Mormonism. It was not long before I realized that it was on the unproven testimony of one man that this scenario was offered. It was not prophesied in the Bible that Jesus was going anywhere but back to heaven to "appear before the person of God for us". (Heb 9:24)

If Jesus had said he was going elsewhere to choose more apostles and preach to other "Jews", I would perhaps have taken it more on board. But he chose the 12 and there are no others mentioned in scripture. (or what I accept as scripture) The foundation stones were the basis of the kingdom. All else is built on them.

The Book of Mormon is an account of a 1000-year history of some of the people of ancient America, and includes a number of chapters which describe in some detail Jesus Christ’s ministry among those people. It does not contradict or supplant anything in the Bible. Rather it complements and clarifies many of the doctrines to which the Bible alludes but is not entirely clear. Its purpose is literally to prove the Bible to be true, and, as stated on the title page of the book is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”

Click to expand...

I would like to see the accounts that do this Katzpur. That would be an interesting exercise.

More tomorrow, okay?

Click to expand...

Thank you for your time and the effort you have made to respond. I am enjoying the discussion.

Apologies again for the long winded reply.....

Jay, thank you for your extremely informative posts. I'm afraid that I'm just not going to be able to spend any time online at all tonight. Do me a favor and let me catch up with your existing posts before you post anything else, okay? It may be a couple of days before I'm able to cover all of the points you've touched on.

OK. Take your time. I probably need to catch up on stuff myself.....

Till next time....

Jay

JayJayDee said:

As to the name "Jehovah"...we believe that Jehovah was the God of ancient Israel. The one unique God who was Creator of heaven and earth. Moses wrote: : "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah". ( Deut 6:4 ASV) I don't see room for this to be the pre-human Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

We also believe that "Jehovah" was the God of ancient Israel , the Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Creation, we would say, was a joint venture with both the Father and the Son involved. Ephesians 3:9 says that God "created all things by Jesus Christ," and Hebrews 1:2 refers to the Son as the one "whom he [the Father]hath appointed heir of all things,[and] by whom also he made the worlds." So the Father was the Master Planner, the Architect of the Universe and the actual work of the creation was accomplished by the Son.

When speaking about Jehovah, ’Elo·him′ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1)

Click to expand...

The "plural of majesty" is a common interpretation but one based more on dogma than on linguistic evidence. Nobody actually knows for sure where the word "elohim" came from because, to begin with, the root of the word most likely is found in a language other then Hebrew and it doesn't appear to be preserved in the word as it is often understood by scholars today. It has been used at various times, in various places and by various people to refer to "deity," both singular and plural. To clarify, it would probably be inaccurate to suggest, as I may have done, that we believe the Father's "given name" (for lack of a better term) to be "Elohim." We refer to Him as "Elohim" in the same way as you probably actually call your mother, "Mom." You may refer to her as "my mother" or "my mom." But you address her as, "Mom." It's not her name (her name may be Ann) so it's not the same thing as calling her "Ann." It's an appellative -- almost a cross between a name and a title. I know this is something we could probably hash about for quite some some, but I suspect that neither of us would really change our position much, so I'm not going to belabor this one point any further.

Can you provide clear scriptural reference to any place where Jesus is called Jehovah?

Click to expand...

That's a difficult question. If I were to ask you for a "clear scriptural reference" to anywhere where God (i.e. the Father) is called "Jehovah," you could give me quite a few examples. I would turn around and say that the individual being called "Jehovah" is simply not the individual you believe it to be. Since we can both agree that the Father and the Son are not one and the same, you may find it interesting to compare the following examples of where we have a passage from the Old Testament and another from the New Testament that appear to be clearly describing or referencing the same individual. In every case, the individual is spoken of in almost exactly the same words. The are described as having the same function, the same title, etc. The obvious first example is: Someone calls himself “I AM”. This takes place in both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. Unless the Father and the Son are both "I AM," then I AM must be referring to the same individual in both instances. Anyway, other examples are:

He is our Savior:
Old Testament – Isaiah 43:11 New Testament – 1 John 4:14

He is our Redeemer:
Old Testament – Psalm 19:14 New Testament – Titus 2:13-14

It was He who was pierced:
Old Testament – Zechariah 12:10 New Testament – Revelation 1:7

He is the First and the Last:
Old Testament – Isaiah 48:12 New Testament – Revelation 22:13

He is the Creator:
Old Testament – Genesis 2:4 New Testament – Colossians 1:16

He saves us from death:
Old Testament – Hosea 13:14 New Testament – 1 Corinthians 15:22

He will be our judge:
Old Testament – 1 Chronicles 16:33 New Testament – John 5:22

He is our shepherd:
Old Testament – Psalms 23:1 New Testament – John 10:14

He is the Lord of Lords:
Old Testament – Deuteronomy 10:17 New Testament – Revelation 17:14

Every knee shall bow unto Him:
Old Testament – Isaiah 45:23 New Testament – Philippians 2:10-11

We are to call upon His name:
Old Testament – Psalms 116:17 New Testament – Romans 10:13

He is our Rock: Old Testament – Psalms 62:2 New Testament – 1 Corinthians 10:4

He is the Holy One:
Old Testament – Habakkuk 1:12 New Testament – Luke 4:34

We shall not tempt Him:
Old Testament – Deuteronomy 6:16 New Testament – Matthew 4:7

He laid the earth’s foundation:
Old Testament – Psalms 102:25 New Testament – Hebrews 1:10

It is He who receives our spirits:
Old Testament – Psalms 31:5 New Testament – Acts 7:59

Numerous other verses state that the God of the Old Testament has the same names, titles and qualities as the God of the New Testament. He is described as being worthy of the same honor and performed the same acts. I won't bother to list them, but if you want some examples, I would be happy to provide them.

Wow! I'm so far behind in my responses.

JW's believe that the designation "only begotten" refers to the fact that the Son was the first and only direct creation of his Father. Then the Father assigned the Son to fabricate all other things. Only the Father is the Creator; the Son was the instrument or agency that He used to bring about creation. (Col 1:15, 16) We do not believe it has anything to do with his human conception.

Click to expand...

May I ask you then if you believe that the words "Father" and "Son" are accurate in expressing the relationship between "the Father" and "the Son." I'm sure you believe that Mary was literally Jesus' mother. Do you believe that Jesus had a literal father? (I'm not asking you whether the sex act was involved in Christ's conception.) Like most other Christians, we Mormons believe that Mary was a virgin both when she conceived and when she gave birth to her Son, so that would mean that no intercourse took place. But she was His actual mother. We believe that God was His actual Father. We believe theirs was an actual Father-Son relationship. We also believe that all of humankind are the spirit offspring of God and that He is the father of our spirits. (See and Acts 17:28-29 and Hebrews 12:9.) The fact that He is the Father of our spirits does not mean that He is the father of our physical bodies. Our earthly fathers are the fathers of our flesh. The fact that Jesus is referred to as "the only Begotten" Son of the Father means that unlike us, the Father of His spirit and the Father of His physical body was the same individual.

He is also called "firstborn" which is a word used in scripture of a firstborn offspring of either man or animals....the first one born to a mother. It is true that Jesus was the firstborn in his Jewish family, but it was not the first time he had been brought into existence. He was at his Father's side throughout the entire creative process....as "a Master Craftsman" (Prov 8:22, 30; 1 Cor 1:24) His human birth simply saw his life transferred into the womb of an earthly woman.

Click to expand...

We believe that He was the "firstborn" in a similar way -- that He was the first of any of God's spirit offspring to come into existence. He existed prior to any of the rest of us. "Firstborn" can also, we believe, refer to His being the first person ever to have been resurrected. He was the first, in other words, to overcome death and be born as a resurrected being.

"In the beginning" refers to the beginning of creation. Since the Father is an eternal being, (i.e. he has as much time behind him as there is in front of him) He had no beginning. The apostle John calls the Son, "the beginning of the creation by God". (Rev 3:14) Logically then, the son was himself the beginning of all creation.

Click to expand...

I'd say I'm pretty much in agreement with that.

When the Bible says that man is 'created in God's image', I don't believe that it can be a physical image because God is an invisible spirit. I believe that it has to do with his attributes. This is what separates us from the animals. Made in God's image means we have a moral sense; an inborn sense of fairness; we have spirituality and a deep need to worship our Creator. We also reflect our Father's creativity in art, poetry, literature and music. In architecture and sculpture, or appreciation for the natural world and it's creatures, we have an eye for beauty that touches us in wonderful ways. We are moved to thank the one responsible for it...are we not?

When we look in a mirror we see an image of ourselves. We are not the image but it represents us. That is how I see Jesus being "the image" of his Father. He reflects his Father's personality and attitudes. His love and mercy were in perfect balance to his justice.

Is that what you wanted to know?

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. That is what I wanted to know. On this point, we do disagree, and you (either happily or not ) have your belief in common with the rest of Christendom.

You say that the scriptures teach that God is "an invisible spirit." I disagree. They teach that He is "spirit," but we know from the fact that there are times when a spirit can supposedly be seen by human eyes that it is not, by nature, invisible. When Jesus first appeared to His Apostles on the first Easter morning, they were afraid because "they thought they had seen a spirit." Jesus called their attention to the fact that if He had been merely spirit, He would not have had flesh and bones. And yet, they could obviously see someone who looked like the man Jesus they knew.

Furthermore, there is nowhere in the Bible where we are told that God does not have any physical parts like a man. On the contrary, His physical parts are specifically mentioned in many verses. Again, you can say that these many references to His face, His arms, His backside, etc. are merely figurative, but I see no reason to believe that to be the case. Consider these three passages, all from the Old Testament:

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 24:10-11 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Now, either God (the Father) does have a physical form which can be seen, face to face, the way one would see a friend or else the individual being referred to in these passages is, in fact, the pre-mortal Jesus Christ. I don't see how any of these three passages could be accurate otherwise.

When you get right down to it, the word "image" has absolutely nothing to do with personality or non-visible characteristics or qualities. An image, by its very definition, is the representation of physical qualities. When you look in the mirror, you see your image (which looks like you look). When someone takes a photograph of you, the camera captures an image (a permanent record of what you looked like at that moment). Identical twins are said to be the exact image of one another (i.e. they look alike). Even when you say that someone is the image of health, you mean that he looks healthy. That's what the word "image" means. It doesn't mean one thing when we use it in everyday language and something entirely different when we're speaking of how the word is used in the Bible.

The word "likeness," on the other hand, can refer to personality or to non-physical qualities. That's why the scriptures use both words: We were created in God's image (physical appearance), after His likeness (non-physical attributes). It's kind of like this... You can say that a person possesses great spiritual wealth, but you can't say he possesses a wad of spiritual hundred dollar bills. The word "spiritual" can be used to define certain words, but not others. The same is true of the word "image." It means what it means (the representation of something's physical attributes). It doesn't mean what people decide they want it to mean, based on their already pre-defined beliefs.

Mormons believe that God has a human form. The entire first chapter of Genesis is dealing with the physical creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

Verses 24 and 25 (KJV) state:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Verses 26 and 27 continue:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Verses 26 and 27 seem to have a direct correlation to verses 24 and 25. It's hard for me to imagine that someone who had never been told that God doesn't have a form would read those verses for the first time and come to any conclusion other than God created dogs who would reproduce and bear dogs, cats who would reproduce and bear cats, and humans who would reproduce and bear humans.

In our image, after our likeness. And that's exactly what happened. In Genesis 5:3, we're told:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth...

The same words exactly (except reversed from "in our image, after our likeness" to "in his... likeness, after his image") are used when referring to man reproducing after his kind.

I suspect that most people reading the Bible would assume that Adam had a son who bore a physical resemblance to him, at least to the degree that they were "the same kind" of being.



Okay... that's it for tonight. I still have a ways to go before I catch up with your questions and comments. Thanks for your patience and thanks for the respectful way in which you are contributing to our conversation.

[FONT=&quot]Katzpur, before you go any further, may I address this point?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The obvious first example is: Someone calls himself “I AM”. This takes place in both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. Unless the Father and the Son are both "I AM," then I AM must be referring to the same individual in both instances.

Click to expand...

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Just to clarify this verse. I have seen it offered many times as “proof” that Jesus is God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Taking Jesus' comment in context, when he said "I am", he was talking to the Pharisees. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]From the KJV...."Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:56-58)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now look at the same verses in the NEW KJV,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What difference do you see?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You will notice, the expression "I AM" is capitalized, but there are no capitals in Greek. It is at the discretion of translators to put appropriate words in capitals.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus is addressing a question about his age, not his identity. He was actually saying that he was in existence before Abraham was born. He was not claiming to be God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Exodus 3:14, the expression there is....'Eh·yeh′ ’Asher′ ’Eh·yeh′. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yah′, from which the word ’Eh·yeh′ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"I AM" is translated into the Greek, as "e·go′ ei·mi′".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is used in Matthew 18:20, 24:5, John 6:51, 8:12, 8:17 and many other verses...but not one of these is used to prove Jesus is claiming to be God. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is no basis except pure trinitarian bias for claiming that John 8:58 has any connection with Exodus 3:14. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The fact, that it is capitalized is misleading and totally dishonest.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus also said, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” (Matt 18:20)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you see "I am" in capitals in this verse? It is the same word, but I have never seen it used to prove that Jesus is God. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sadly, trinitarian bias is found in many places, especially in the KJV.
[/FONT]

In the interest of time, Jay, I'm probably not going to comment on every point you raised, though I will try not to overlook anything really significant. If I don't touch on something you would like my input on, let me know.

JayJayDee said:

Most definitely YES! But unlike the churches of Christendom, we acknowledge Jehovah as the only true God and his son Jesus as his anointed, sent forth to redeem mankind and provide the means to release them from the awful situation that Adam, his wife and the devil got us into in Eden. I believe that LDS have a somewhat different approach to that story. Perhaps we could discuss that also?

Click to expand...

Yes, we would disagree that the situation Adam and Eve "got us into" was not "awful" at all, but a vital part of God's plan for mankind. I definitely think we should talk about this at some point, but since it's kind of heading off in another direction from where we were, I'll hold off for now.

Yes, because we are not a breakaway from any particular denomination or faith, but we have completely separated from Christendom because we believe as you do, that the churches are the product of an apostasy that was foretold by Jesus and his apostles. "Wheat and weeds" were to grow together until the "harvest time", which we believe is the present time. This is the time when a separation was to take place...when the 'weeds' would be clearly distinguishable from the 'wheat'. (Matthew 7:15-23; 13:36-43; Acts 20:29) People from all faiths and cultures and backgrounds fill our ranks around the world.

Click to expand...

I think the biggest difference between our positions on this issue is that we see "authority" as essential. We don't believe that anyone can just start a Church using the Bible as their sole guide and have it be the Church authorized by either the Father or the Son. We believe that Jesus Christ established a Church and that it fell into apostasy pretty early on (as you do). We just believe that He is the only one who can legitimately re-establish that Church, and that there is more to "the true Church" than teaching "true doctrines." It must be led by people who have received their authority to lead it from Jesus Christ himself. That is the only way doctrine can keep from being corrupted over time.

Unlike the Mormons though, we each see our role as evangelizers. We have missionaries too, but each and every one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a preacher of the good news...not for a couple of years, but for the rest of our lives.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is a saying in the LDS Church: "Every member a missionary." We are constantly being encouraged to engage in missionary work, and if a member of the Church wants to, he or she can go to the Church's website and get access to numerous missionary callings he or she can become involved in. We have "talks" (i.e. sermons) in Church and classroom instruction on how to be a better missionary and why missionary work is so important. Even though a "full-time" mission generally just lasts for 2 years (during which time it's basically 16 hours a day for 6 days a week), we are expected to continue to spread the gospel to the best of our abilities throughout our lives. It's not as if we go on a two-year mission and then just sit back and do no more missionary work throughout the rest of our lives. Missionary work throughout the rest of our lives may not be as structured as yours is, but it's definitely important to us.

From the Mormon perspective, can you tell me what you teach as regards "the good news of God's kingdom"? Firstly, what is the 'good news' and what is 'God's Kingdom'?

Click to expand...

I'll get to this question first thing tomorrow. We're taking off in a few minutes to go see "Zero Dark Thirty." (We're trying to see all of the Academy Award nominees for best picture before the awards are presented.) So, later...

I understand Katzpur, so I will just carry on because I have a little time after dinner to formulate my replies.

In answer to the previous points raised, and in the interests of clarity here are my responses......

May I ask you then if you believe that the words "Father" and "Son" are accurate in expressing the relationship between "the Father" and "the Son." I'm sure you believe that Mary was literally Jesus' mother. Do you believe that Jesus had a literal father? (I'm not asking you whether the sex act was involved in Christ's conception.) Like most other Christians, we Mormons believe that Mary was a virgin both when she conceived and when she gave birth to her Son, so that would mean that no intercourse took place. But she was His actual mother. We believe that God was His actual Father. We believe theirs was an actual Father-Son relationship. We also believe that all of humankind are the spirit offspring of God and that He is the father of our spirits. (See and Acts 17:28-29 and Hebrews 12:9.) The fact that He is the Father of our spirits does not mean that He is the father of our physical bodies. Our earthly fathers are the fathers of our flesh. The fact that Jesus is referred to as "the only Begotten" Son of the Father means that unlike us, the Father of His spirit and the Father of His physical body was the same individual.

Click to expand...

The relationship as Father and son began when the pre-human Jesus was brought forth as God's "only begotten son". He was at his Father's side before anything else was brought into existence. When his life was transferred into the womb of a Jewish virgin, he was born as a human son of God, (like Adam was "a son of God" having no human parents. Luke 3:38) With no human father and no genetic input from his earthly mother, Jesus was produced entirely from the operation of the holy spirit. He could have no genetic input from an existing human because all were tainted with sin, passed down from Adam. (Rom 5:12) Jesus had to be sinless to pay the ransom for mankind. He was called the “the last Adam” because he had to be like Adam in every way. A perfect life offered for a perfect life. (1 Cor 15:45-47)

Science can produce clones using the DNA of a donor and removing all genetic input from the mother, producing an offspring that is in no way related to anyone but the donor.
Surrogacy can also use a woman to "incubate" a human foetus that is not related to her. It took a couple of thousand years for humans to figure out how to do that.

We believe that He was the "firstborn" in a similar way -- that He was the first of any of God's spirit offspring to come into existence. He existed prior to any of the rest of us. "Firstborn" can also, we believe, refer to His being the first person ever to have been resurrected. He was the first, in other words, to overcome death and be born as a resurrected being.

Click to expand...

It is true that Jesus is also called "firstborn from the dead", not meaning that he was the first one to be resurrected because he himself performed resurrections.
His designation in this regard is that he was the first one resurrected "in the spirit", not the flesh. (1 Pet 3:18)

*sigh* I don't know what just happened, but I got disconnected from the website and just lost my entire answer to your post! That doesn't happen very often, but man do I hate it when it does!

JayJayDee said:

Our children are likewise raised to love God but are encouraged to ask questions and reason on the answers. No one is born one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Each one must make their own choice to serve God and be baptized as a disciple of Christ.

Click to expand...

I've heard so much about "shunning" on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses. So because I have had a long-standing policy to always go to an accurate source for information on any religion (an accurate source being a practicing member of that religion), I'm going to ask you. And whatever you say, I will accept as the truth...

Let's say you had a daughter who wanted very much to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. She became one at the age of 20 and was very committed to her faith for some 20 years. Then, for whatever reason, she decided that she no longer wanted to be a part of this religion, and chose to leave. Worse than that, she became a Mormon! How would this decision change her relationship with the people she had worshipped with for twenty years? Would they still be free to associate with her? How would you and the rest of her family respond? (Understandably, you'd be very unhappy with her decision, but I want to know how she would be treated as a member of your family.) It is "another Testament of Jesus Christ" -- another witness to His power to save us and reconcile us to God. Why four gospel accounts of His life rather than just one? Because the more witnesses to the truth there are, the better. (I would think that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this would resonate with you.

We have little in the way of ritualistic worship. Our meetings are for Bible instruction and training for the ministry in which we all have a share. We are always learning and the school we all attend has no diplomas or degrees because we never graduate, (as if we somehow know it all.) Even our elders attend special schools to help them to be better shepherds. They are both students and teachers. It keeps everyone humble.
We have no paid clergy. All work and earn their own keep. All JW's are volunteers.

Click to expand...

Again, there are some similarities here in our religions. We have no paid clergy either. Our bishop (the leader of a single congregation) is called from among the congregation to serve as its leader for a period of generally about five years. During this time, he continues to work at a paying career apart from his service to the congregation. Our current bishop is also a dentist. He puts in a 40-hour week as a dentist and then puts in an additional probably 25 to 30 hours a week in his church calling. At the end of the five year period, a new bishop will be called and our current bishop may be asked to teach a class of four-year-old children or to be serve in a clerical position under the next bishop. Pretty much all members of a congregation have a "calling" -- some sort of service to the Lord and to their fellow church members. No calling requires a degree from a theological seminary or divinity college. (I don't recall that Peter, James or John had rabinical degrees. ). Even those in the church's top leadership positions (the President of the Church, his two Counselors and the Twelve Apostles) had careers outside of the church prior to being called and were not trained clergymen. One of those currently serving was previously a supreme court justice, one was a cardiovascular surgeon, another was a university president and another the Senior Vice President for Lufthansa Airlines. These men lead the 14.5 million member church. It is far more than a full-time job and they are compensated for their work since it would be virtually impossible for them to hold down another job outside of their leadership position. I believe it would be safe to say, though, that every one of them likely took a cut in pay when leaving behind a lucrative career and accepting a call to the Apostleship.

I have been a Witness of Jehovah for over 40 years. I was in my late teens, early twenties when the hypocrisy of the church became a real stumbling block for me. I tried many denominations but found that they were all basically the same.

Click to expand...

My goodness, you must be an old geezer like me! (I'm 64, by the way.)

I even tried the LDS in my search, but it was not solidly based on scripture and that is what I had set as my main criteria. God's people would use the Bible as the yardstick for everything.

Click to expand...

I can understand your perspective. On the other hand, I think it gets down to what you call "scripture." There is nowhere in the Bible where we are told that this one book, received by revelation from God, but transcribed, compiled and translated by human beings, was ever intended to be our sole source of truth about who God is, about His relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ, about their relationship to us, and about what we must know and do in order to reach our full potential as sons and daughters of God. We are told in the New Testament that Jesus Christ said and did so many things that were not written down at all that, if recorded, would fill all of the books in the world. Unless we believe that most of His time was spent in unimportant endeavors or in small-talk about the upcoming storm over the Sea of Galilee, we must recognize that the Bible contrains but a small portion of what God would have us know and but a fraction of what Jesus Christ taught during His ministry. I mean, just look at the relatively small amount of information we have contained in the four gospel accounts of His life. That brief record of his life is such a tiny fragment of what He must have said and done.

The fact of the matter is that the biblical canon has changed considerably over the years. In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all? Apparently some people believe that the Bible went from being "God-breathed" to "not God-breathed" and back again quite a few times. Anyway, the bottom line is that the Bible, as wonderful a source of information as it is, is not perfect or complete.

To Mormons, "scripture" is anything that God said. We see no reason for Him to have spoken only to one small group of people in a single isolated part of the world. The Book of Mormon is scripture to us, and nowhere does it contradict the Bible (at least not when it is understood correctly). The Book of Mormon is "another testament of Jesus Christ." That phrase really irritates a lot of people. They say, "Why do we need another testament? We have the Bible." Well, why four gospel accounts of His life? Why not just one? It's because the more witnesses or testaments of the truth there are, the better. (I suspect you'll agree with me on that.)