Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER · Aug 29, 2018

Yes i do when i pray. But I would like to explain that no one can worship God except in spirit and in truth. And the only way someone can worship God in spirit is if they've been spiritually Reborn and the only way they can worship God in truth is if they come to Christ who is" the way the truth and the life"
John 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Desert Snake · Aug 29, 2018

The book of James, is an added epistle. It's fake, and contradicts, the real Epistles.

Why was it included in the Bible.

Desert Snake · Aug 29, 2018

No offense to anyone, just my $.02

Deeje · Aug 29, 2018

Thinking Homer said:
Deeje said "John 1:1 is undone by John 1:18"

This is not how you interpret scripture. One verse does not cancel out another.

Exactly. These two verses agree, but not if you believe Jesus is God.

If Jesus is God in John 1:1, then why would John 1:18 say that "No one has seen God at any time"?
Why call Jesus an "only begotten god" if he means that Jesus is THE God? How can God be begotten? One who is begotten needs a begetter. The begetter always comes before the begotten. Human terminology is used so that we can understand familiar relationships....fathers and sons, brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters.

The trinity simply muddies clear water and alters the nature of God and his Christ. It has people worshipping the wrong god.
The devil's favorite trick is to get God's worshippers to violate his own laws....whilst pulling the wool over their eyes and blinding them to the truth. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

You are free to believe it, but I see it as the greatest blasphemy ever unleashed on "Christianity"....a product of the "weeds" Jesus foretold.

Desert Snake · Aug 29, 2018

Genesis 12:7
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 15:15
Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:17
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:3
Abram falls before the Lord
Genesis 18:18
The Lord appears to Abraham
Genesis 18:22
Abraham stood before the Lord
1 Samuel 3:10
The Lord stood before Samuel
•

Deeje said:
Exactly. These two verse agree, but not if you believe Jesus is God.

If Jesus is God in John 1:1, then why would John 1:18 say that "No one has seen God at any time"?
Why call Jesus an "only begotten god" if he means that Jesus is THE God? How can God be begotten?

If you are reading John 1:18, in that manner,
Then you would be worshipping another god, from the one you claim to worship, from the Bible.

Deeje · Aug 29, 2018

GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER said:
If Christ was mutable what you are saying would be absolutely true, it was Jesus who said "before Abraham was I am"

You do realize that Jesus never said that, don't you? The Jews were accusing him of blasphemy, of saying that he was God (an indictable offense) because they wanted an excuse to have him killed.

In his defense, Jesus said....."If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; 55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. ” (John 8:54-59 NASB)

Now if I take that quote from the Jewish Tanach where God told Moses his name in Exodus 3:13-15, it says....
"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:

14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:

15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God [יְהֹוָ֞ה] 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 forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation. טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:"

Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot)

God's name never was "I AM"....it is "I Will Be" (future tense). It is not a declaration of God's existence, but an declaration of his intentions towards his people...to "be" or to "become" whatever was necessary to fulfill his purpose.
Jesus was answering a question about his age, not his status. He was saying that before Abraham was born "I existed". So John 8:58 never was Jesus claiming to be God. There is no connection between his answer and Exodus 3:14-15 at all.

This is just bad translation by biased scholars.

Deeje · Aug 29, 2018

Disciple of Jesus said:
Genesis 12:7
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 15:15
Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:17
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:3
Abram falls before the Lord
Genesis 18:18
The Lord appears to Abraham
Genesis 18:22
Abraham stood before the Lord
1 Samuel 3:10
The Lord stood before Samuel

The "Lord" (YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah) has never physically "stood" before anyone. His representatives have stood before his servants in physical form because they materialized in order to deliver their instructions. Since Jews were forbidden to communicate with spirits, angels always appeared in human form.

Moses once asked to see God but he was told that "no man may see God and yet live".....no mere human would survive the experience for obvious reasons.

If you are reading John 1:18, in that manner,
Then you would be worshipping another god, from the one you claim to worship, from the Bible.

Nonsense. The word in Greek is "theos" and it simply means "a god or goddess"..."a being with divine power or authority".

Since the Greeks were polytheists, their gods were called by their names or collectively called "the gods" They had no word for the one God of the Jews and he had no name because the Jews had stopped using it....so the only way to distinguish a god from Jehovah was to use the definite article (the). So when there was a distinction to be made as to who was being addressed, God or Jesus (both of whom are called theos) they used the definite article THE to denote the true God from other god-like ones. That is why you will see in John 1:1 there are two "gods" mentioned but only one is "THE God" (ho theos). Look it up in the Greek Interlinear. "ho theos" is used only with reference to Jehovah, not to Jesus.

Desert Snake · Aug 29, 2018

Deeje said:
The "Lord" (YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah) has never physically "stood" before anyone. His representatives have stood before his servants in physical form because they materialized in order to deliver their instructions. Since Jews were forbidden to communicate with spirits, angels always appeared in human form.

Moses once asked to see God but he was told that "no man may see God and yet live".....no mere human would survive the experience for obvious reasons.

Genesis 12:7

Nonsense. The word in Greek is "theos" and it simply means "a god or goddess"..."a being with divine power or authority".

Since the Greeks were polytheists, their gods were called by their names or collectively called "the gods" They had no word for the one God of the Jews and he had no name because the Jews had stopped using it....so the only way to distinguish a god from Jehovah was to use the definite article (the). So when there was a distinction to be made as to who was being addressed, God or Jesus (both of whom are called theos) they used the definite article THE to denote the true God from other god-like ones. That is why you will see in John 1:1 there are two "gods" mentioned but only one is "THE God" (ho theos). Look it up in the Greek Interlinear. "ho theos" is used only with reference to Jehovah, not to Jesus.

That refutes your own argument.

iam1me · Aug 29, 2018

Disciple of Jesus said:
The name, and word, it's both, God, is contextual, to descriptor. In other words, you can't use examples from Judaism, or Hebrew, to prove your argument. ☆The name, God, is contextual, to itself.

☆ anytime it is used, cross languages

First off, there are examples of this being translated from the Hebrew to the Greek - as in John 10:34 where the Jewish People are referred to as gods.

Second off, there is no reason to assume that when the word God is used in Greek by the New Testament authors that it is being used in a manner distinct from how the Jews would have used it in Hebrew.

Third, there are innumerable passages in the New Testament that make it clear that Jesus isn't literally God himself - but is distinct and subservient to him (not just "Father")

Fourth, the responsibility of proof lies with the Trinitarian - who must explain why when Jesus is called God this means something different from when angels, Moses, and the Jewish People in general are called God/gods respectively.

iam1me · Aug 29, 2018

GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER said:
Saul "compelled Christians to blaspheme" obviously as a strict Jew he was not compelling them to blaspheme the father but the Son. Saul did this before he became Paul the Apostle. you can only blaspheme God.
Acts 26:11 "And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."
It is basic Elementary teaching of the scripture that Jesus is co-equal and Co Eternal with the father.

First off, use a modern English translation so that you understand what is being said.

Acts 26:11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.

Secondly, Paul isn't describing anyone blaspheming here - he is saying he attempted to get Christians to blaspheme.

Desert Snake · Aug 29, 2018

iam1me said:
First off, there are examples of this being translated from the Hebrew to the Greek - as in John 10:34 where the Jewish People are referred to as gods.

*

Second off, there is no reason to assume that when the word God is used in Greek by the New Testament authors that it is being used in a manner distinct from how the Jews would have used it in Hebrew.

Then Jesus is being called God.

Third, there are innumerable passages in the New Testament that make it clear that Jesus isn't literally God himself - but is distinct and subservient to him (not just "Father")

Revelation 1:6
Colossians 3:17
Colossians 3:23
Colossians 3:24

Fourth, the responsibility of proof lies with the Trinitarian - who must explain why when Jesus is called God this means something different from when angels, Moses, and the Jewish People in general are called God/gods respectively.

*
Note the contradiction, of how you are using the name, God, saying that it is vague, and, and also arguing that it isn't vague.
The general problem with your argument, besides the contradictory usage, is that you aren't actually following it. In other words, if the name god, is vague, as you argue, [whether you realize you are saying that, or not, then your usage, must not be vague, and, your methodology, must not be vague, by how you determine what 'god' means, in text.
Your argument, just doesn't work.

Oeste · Aug 29, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
@Oeste , you said,

1. We know the Magi came to worship Jesus.

Where do you get this?

From the bible of course.

Hockeycowboy said:
You don't "know" that.

Of course I do.

Hockeycowboy said:
You think the "star over Bethlehem" was from God?

Of course.

Hockeycowboy said:
That God would use those who practice astrology, something His word condemns, to pay him "homage"?

Did God use a murderer, something His word condemns, to lead His people out of Egypt? Exodus 2:11-12

Can you explain how God can do that but find no use for an astrologer?

Hockeycowboy said:
Oeste, why does God condemn astrology?

If you can answer why God condemns murder, I am confident you can your question above.

Hockeycowboy said:
Where does that power really come from?

Shall we use scripture, or the Watchtower? If we use scripture we find our answer here:

1 Peter 5:11 “For all power belongs to God, now and forever. Amen.”

But if we use the WT, our results will vary, year to year, issue to issue, "new light" to "new light".

Hockeycowboy said:
So who would've really used them?

God of course.

Hockeycowboy said:
Interesting that as they followed the "star", it took them first to Herod (who really wanted to kill the child, Jesus), then to the location in Bethlehem

Interesting you are quick to condemn the magi, whereas David had previously pleaded for their lives (Daniel 2:24). In any event, your analysis is incorrect. The star led them to Jerusalem, not Herod.

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,

2 saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." (Matthew 2:1-2)

The simple answer to most of your questions is that it took a lot of faith to go into Jerusalem and ask "Where is he who was born King of the Jews?" King Herod was not a nice guy, and the question certainly raised a few eyebrows, especially since everyone knew Herod had not been "born" King of the Jews, but had been placed their by the Roman Empire. The question itself became such an issue that Herod and all Jerusalem became disturbed (Mat 2:3).

You would know this if you simply read the Matthew account without the insertion of the usual vitriol of the Watchtower. I can't see how anyone could read this account and leave convinced the star was a sign from Satan. Read the verse. The Magi clearly called the star "his star" meaning the star of the King of the Jews. There is no need to insert that extra dry fluff with a twist into the verse!

Hockeycowboy said:
...a house, not a manger, btw...a lie. Yes, the nativity scene displayed on Church grounds is a lie. (But you knew that, didn't you?) Again, who would be promoting a lie? The Devil, maybe?

OH MY GOODNESS, you can't be serious HockeyCowboy! Who feeds you this stuff?

The nativity scenes are a meant to visualize a conflation of biblical events...they are not, and never were meant to be, a verse by verse depiction of Luke and Matthew! If you want that, you open your bible or go to church!!!

So the manger? Yes, because Jesus was born in a manger as Luke clearly states. The Magi? Yes, because the Magi came to worship Jesus. It is not a "lie" and to answer your question, the only one claiming it is a lie is Satan!

Put down the WT. Pick up a bible. Start reading. It is not a "sin" and will not lead you into "darkness" as the Watchtower claims!

Hockeycowboy said:
(Oops, I went off on a tangent; sorry.)

So did I but we've all done that from time to time. But now it's time to get on track and answer those pesky little questions I posed earlier. I note @nPeace is doing his best to avoid them also.

Hockeycowboy said:
Notice, the astrologers called the one they were looking for, "king of the Jews".... not God.

Who is "King of the Jews"? Caesar? Herod? or someone else?

Hockeycowboy said:
Paying 'homage' is proper; not worship, in the sense we use it.

The entire premise your team put forth on obeisance/worship went to pot with a few simple questions and observations. Obeisance is worldly or secular, and worship is spiritual. So obeisance involves matters of tradition, culture and worldly formalities while worship involves matter of God or Deity.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for angels to give "obeisance" to Christ at Hebrews 1:6 because the angels do no follow our secular ways. "Proskuneo" is properly translated "worship". Obeisance is given to another person, not from angels to man.If you have doubts about this, look up the definition your fellow "in the truth" brother gave.

The other questions I asked are still out there...unanswered, which is disappointing from an Organization which claims to have them.

But just to be sure there is no doubt, we can put put this whole thing to rest with another quote from scripture.

And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. Matthew 2:11

So Jesus got both..."obeisance" and "worship", all at the same time. No one got a look of horror on their face, no one prevented it, and no one threw the gifts out with the bath water.

Hockeycowboy · Aug 29, 2018

Oeste said:
And going into the house....

No manger there!

Knowing the Bible says one thing, but then wilfully twisting & stating another...you justify that, huh? -- Luke 16:10b NIV, "....whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."

Sad you don't seem to care.

Hockeycowboy · Aug 29, 2018

Oeste said:
Shall we use scripture, or the Watchtower? If we use scripture we find our answer here:

1 Peter 5:11 “For all power belongs to God, now and forever. Amen.”

So in Exodus 7, where Moses' staff becomes a snake, then Jannes and Jambres staffs became snakes.... Jehovah caused that, too?

Oeste · Aug 29, 2018

nPeace said:
Like I said here, I don't believe the problem is with the word, but with a personal leaning toward an unscriptural doctrine.

That's not what you stated before. In fact, you were very focused on words, particularly "proskuneo". You told us "proskuneo" could be separated into "obeisance" and "worship".

You even took the time to define "obeisance" and "worship". You did this more than once. Don't your remember?

So why now is the problem no longer words but "unscriptural doctrine"?

nPeace said:
If for example, the Greek word was translated worship in every place, why would a person equate that worship to the kind of worship given to God, unless trying to support a teaching that is not scriptural?

So we first decide what is scriptural and unscriptural, and then we can translate the verse???

That is called eisegesis, or reading meaning into the text. We want to use exegesis, and have the text read it's meaning to us.

nPeace said:
The scriptures teach worship of the father, not the son. Matthew 4:10; John 4:24; Revelation 19:10.

Scripture will teach you anything you've decided beforehand it should teach, but that's not the way we should teach.

nPeace said:
This is why I wanted to know why there was a need to try to break down the words, as though... it seems to me an ongoing agreement over words. Interestingly this is something the apostles dealt with from those intent on deviating from truth.
2 Timothy 2:14-18

You "wanted to know why there was a need to break down the words" when all you did was "break down the words" in your prior posts?

Who wrote this in post 230?:

nPeace said:
I think it is reasonable that we consider the meaning of those words, and for translators, it is very important for them, if they aim to have a translation that is both accurate and easy to read and understand, to use words that according to the context, accurately apply.

worship
verb
Love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol
(religion) show devotion to (a deity)

Or this?

nPeace said:
obeisance
noun
Bending the head or body or knee as a sign of reverence or submission or shame or greeting
The act of obeying; dutiful or submissive behavior with respect to another person
deferential respect - a gesture expressing deferential respect, such as a bow or curtsy

Who told us it was reasonable to consider the meaning of these words?

nPeace said:
reverence
verb
Regard with feelings of respect and reverence; consider hallowed, exalted or be in awe of
regard or treat with deep respect

noun
A feeling of profound respect for someone or something
An act showing respect (especially a bow or curtsy)
deep respect for someone or something

But let's move on....

nPeace said:
It seems to me, there is no need to fight about words, when we can simply take the word and prove the truth.

But we're NOT fighting about words. I ACCEPTED your definitions, way back in post 277, remember? :

Oeste said:
In short, I am not arguing your definition of obeisance or worship. I am accepting the definition that you posted. I want to work with these definitions so we can have common ground as we take our walk together. We can then attentively listen and discuss your rationale.

Why are you making it hard to agree with you? I can understand where we might "agree to disagree" but I don't understand why we need to "disagree where we agree".

nPeace said:
So the important questions to be answered, have already been answered.

This SO reminds me of a Watchtower study! I kept asking questions not found at the bottom of the page and they told me they would get back to me next week. But instead of forgetting about the questions, I asked them again. They kept bringing back more "experienced" elders who assured me my questions would be answered.

Then the big day arrived. A circuit overseer, Brother Eagle, was going to answer all my questions. Yes, brother Eagle was had been schooled at Bethel, and he knew things about the bible that none of us knew.

So he comes, but instead of answering my questions he gives a half hour speech. He then invites me to the Kingdom Hall and apparently informed my "teachers" they could terminate the study by next week if I hadn't "progressed".

nPeace said:
Is Jesus Almighty God? The scriptures answer No.
Is Jesus equal to Almighty God. The scriptures answer No.
Is Jesus part of a Trinity? The scriptures answer No.

Why is there a need to debate this further?

There's been no "debate" here, just a speech about what you believe and an avoidance of answers.
BTW, IMO the answer to all the questions above is "YES", but if you want to know why, you'll need to answer questions. Here they are again:

1. We know the Magi came to worship Jesus. Did they come to render the same secular proskuneo (obeisance) we might give an earthly magistrate, or did they come to give the spiritual proskuneo (worship) that one gives Deity?

2. If the Magi came to give obeisance, what activity did Jesus engage in to earn this secular or worldly honor? Was he born to it in the manner of a king or prince? Was it conferred on him by the Jews, Romans or Jehovah?

3. How does your answer tie into Hockey Cowboy's statement that Christ had to be given his kingship? Were the Magi "jumping the gun" by giving him "obeisance"? Were the gifts an early mistake?

One bonus question, if it can be answered:

4. You allege the angels “proskuneo” Jesus (Hebrews 1:6) in the form of "obeisance", correct? It's the same deference and honor we give the President or judge who enters the court room. But we also know that in heaven, God is the King and God is the judge, so why would the angels follow earthly traditions and render secular, worldly obeisance to Jesus?

Deeje · Aug 30, 2018

Do the non-trinitarians here get the feeling that the wool has been well and truly pulled over the eyes of those who cannot see what we see as a great blasphemy? I think I will just let Jesus tell them the truth. The circular arguments and justifications are making me dizzy....

God will let them have their trinity......(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) These are the ones who also justify Christmas and Easter as "Christian" celebrations. The star that led pagan astrologers to Jerusalem so that Herod could have Jesus killed was provided by God...and it sits proudly atop their Christmas trees with pretty twinkle lights. (Matthew 15:13-14) :facepalm:

What can you say?

iam1me · Aug 30, 2018

Disciple of Jesus said:
*
Then Jesus is being called God.

Jesus is addressed as God in some locations in the New Testament. We all agree to this. The question is: in what sense is he called God?

The challenge for Trinitarians is to establish that the term should be interpreted literally rather than using the existing precedent in scripture as when applied to angels, Moses, and the Jewish People. They must do this while taking int account the great multitude of passages in scripture which differentiate Jesus from God and subordinate him to God.

Revelation 1:6
Colossians 3:17
Colossians 3:23
Colossians 3:24

Good verses, though I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with them.

*
Note the contradiction, of how you are using the name, God, saying that it is vague, and, and also arguing that it isn't vague.
The general problem with your argument, besides the contradictory usage, is that you aren't actually following it. In other words, if the name god, is vague, as you argue, [whether you realize you are saying that, or not, then your usage, must not be vague, and, your methodology, must not be vague, by how you determine what 'god' means, in text.
Your argument, just doesn't work.

I didn't say that the usage of the word "God" is vague. I pointed out the fact that the term is applied to others (angels and men) in a non-literal fashion. No one thinks Moses is literally God, for instance, nor the angels, nor are the Jewish People literally gods (for there is only one God). There is a consistency to this usage: it is applied to God's agents, his mediators, his people who are to do his will. This is all completely consistent with who Jesus is and his role - it is thus quite natural that the term be applied to him in the same manner. There is, thus, no contradiction in my position here.

Oeste · Aug 30, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
No manger there!

Knowing the Bible says one thing, but then wilfully twisting & stating another...you justify that, huh? -- Luke 16:10b NIV, "....whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."

Sad you don't seem to care.

See? This is why I kindly asked for you to put down you Watchtower and pick up a bible.

Luke 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

Don't pick up a WT publication to read Luke HockeyCowboy. You are perfectly capable of reading all of chapter 2, even the entire book, on your own.

There are mangers all over the place, and the nativity scene with the shepherds out at night, the star in the sky, the baby in the manger is not a "lie" but simply a conflation of actual biblical events and were never meant to be a verse by verse accounting.

The manger is there because the bible puts one there. Sad you don't seem to care.

Oeste · Aug 30, 2018

GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER said:
You are preaching a false Jesus.

I'm afraid it doesn't stop at a false Jesus, but they go heavy into a false and different gospel. There are a lot of threads on this so I won't go into them here.

GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER said:
I'm still not convinced that you understand you're depriving here's a little illustration I wrote up that might help. if you don't understand who Christ is then you're still in a depraved state of condemnation.

The Watchtower has a rather peculiar view of sin and repentance. In fact, they see depravity in everything but themselves. Witnesses are constantly barraged about "keeping Jehovah's Organization 'clean'" during meetings and Assemblies.

The WT has never asked forgiveness, repented, or even issued a simple apology for a false expectation, act, teaching, or prophesy. Until they do, they remain in their sin.

Desert Snake · Aug 30, 2018

iam1me said:
Jesus is addressed as God in some locations in the New Testament. We all agree to this. The question is: in what sense is he called God?

The challenge for Trinitarians is to establish that the term should be interpreted literally rather than the existing precedent in scripture as when applied to angels, Moses, and the Jewish People. They do this while taking int account the great multitude of passages in scripture which differentiate Jesus from God and subordinate him to God.

Good verses, though I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with them.

I didn't say that the usage of the word "God" is vague. I pointed out the fact that the term is applied to others (angels and men) in a non-literal fashion. No one thinks Moses is literally God, for instance, nor the angels, nor are the Jewish People literally gods (for there is only one God). There is a consistency to this usage: it is applied to God's agents, his mediators, his people who are to do his will. This is all completely consistent with who Jesus is and his role - it is thus quite natural that the term be applied to him in the same manner. There is, thus, no contradiction in my position here.

We get to where you claim that the Jewish people, are called gods, by Jesus. Incorrect, because in John 10:35
Jesus specifies 'them', in reference, to who is being called gods, [the people in Psalms, not the people, that Jesus is talking to. Again, specific people, and Jesus differentiates between them, and the people who He is talking to, (also Jews.
Why differentiate, if it just means, "the Jewish people", generally? Why not just say, ye are gods, as a direct statement? Because it isn't a direct statement.

Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Witness for Jehovah

Witness for Jehovah

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member