YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It could certainly be considered as loving or equitable by some. As far as verses dealing with homosexual orientation, what verses deal with kleptomaniacal orientation?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Clear Challenges to the Trinity Doctrine
- Thread starter tigger2
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
shaking my head here (not in agreement, but rather in sadness at your answer). Homosexual acts are maybe not, by definition, promiscuous. But they are declared ungodly in the Bible.
You're right. So I'm going to stop in this thread.
What you clarified here is indeed great, though it is so, in theory.
Alas, the Quran is based on another purpose, stated at the beginning... something like: "I didn't create you but to worship/serve me".
Doesn't this mean that the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and Quran don't mention the same end purpose for creating humans.
Also, how does someone know the other people who need to be served?
And, if someone serves who serves him, isn't it how animals do, since always, in the wild jungle while being guided by their natural instincts?
But, are you ready to also serve (by not defending yourself as a first step) those who try getting rid of you, for one reason or another? (For instance, this sort of help isn't supposed to happen in the wild jungle)
And in which category do you see yourself, most of the time? Are you in the category that needs being served or has the duty to serve others?
If you are among who need to be served, do you really feel good if a certain help is imposed on you, under the pretext that you are ignorant of what is good and bad for you better that those who help you?
You may feel good in such a case, but surely not I.
I recall I tried once to help, without being asked, a colleague, at school before a math exam, to know the trick that solves a difficult problem (expected to be asked in the exam). Soon after I let him know it, I heard him say: "Aren't you happy now and proud of yourself after you proved that you are better than me in math?". And I didn’t blame him because his reaction was natural and I had to expect it.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Some people also consider Trump to be a wise and considerate man.
Kleptomania isn’t an orientation; it’s a mental illness.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
some acts are declared ungodly in the Bible. But then, the Bible also condones slavery, demands that rape victims marry their attackers, and advocates stoning people who wear 50/50 cotton/poly.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
IMO, one should recognize that the Bible, as with all religious scriptures, is not objective literature. Secondly, one should recognize that cultural norms are reflected in scriptures that may not directly deal with religious teachings but may be reflected in them anyway.
My point is that most societies traditionally viewed homosexuality as being repulsive, thus it is no surprise to me that it's reflected as such in the Bible. Jesus, going by the Gospel, hardly was conservative religiously, thus he emphasized inclusion as long as there was faith in God and as long as "do no harm" was involved.
Thus, who's a supposed victim in a homosexual relationship? Generally speaking, none that I can see. So, I wonder with this being the case, whether today Jesus might say, "Hey, it's love, and all love comes from God, so welcome in as long as it's entirely consensual".
Just my thought.
My point is that most societies traditionally viewed homosexuality as being repulsive, thus it is no surprise to me that it's reflected as such in the Bible. Jesus, going by the Gospel, hardly was conservative religiously, thus he emphasized inclusion as long as there was faith in God and as long as "do no harm" was involved.
Thus, who's a supposed victim in a homosexual relationship? Generally speaking, none that I can see. So, I wonder with this being the case, whether today Jesus might say, "Hey, it's love, and all love comes from God, so welcome in as long as it's entirely consensual".
Just my thought.
HI @tigger2
Like you, I am not a "3 is 1" trinitarian. I do believe the trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are a trinity of individuals that each have different and specific and cardinal roles in support of God's plan for mankind.
However I am interested in how the concepts in this thread coordinates with recent threads regarding the Jehovah Witness translation of John 1:1c where, grammatically the phrase reads "and the Word was A God".
While the Jehovahs Witnesses have easily won the debate that this is, GRAMMATICALLY, a perfectly correct translation, it seems to indicate that Jesus, as the Word of God is, at least, some sort of God. Also, the early Greek of John 1:18 indicates that Jesus,is referred to as "the only begotten God hath declared him" (referring to the unseen God whom "no man hath ever seen at any time").
The early Apostolic Fathers taught that Christians were to be "imitators" of God so as to be more like God is similar in concept to the 4Q dead sea Scroll documents that speak of those individiuals who had become like God (or "God-like"). Thus, historically, it is not a problem to ancient Judeo-Christian theology that there are other beings who are like God in certain ways.
Can you clarify :
In Jehovah Witness Theology, is Jesus some sort of "God"?
and, if so,
What is the Jehovahs Witness definition of "a god" inside the Jehovahs Witness Theology?
If, for example, a "god" has to be "Omnipotent", having ALL power and ALL authority, etc. (I mean this in a rational sense, not the irrational sense often applied to God), then it is a bit more difficult imagining two beings having all authority equally. (though if they are unified in purpose and thought I think this model could be described).
However, IF the definition of a "god" is merely a being that has reached a certain rational level of power and knowledge and authority (etc), then the concept of multiple Gods is rational just as it is in the model of Henotheism where multiple Gods exist but only one worshipped as all-powerful and has all authority and who delegates purpose and direction to other, lessor Gods as in early Israel and Egyptian henotheism.
As an aside, I like the logic and the thought out presentations of your posts.
I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful Tigger2 and thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide.
Clear
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
perhaps another thread.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
another thread.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It would make sense that Doesn't this mean that the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and the Quran would state the same end purpose for creating humans, since they are the most current revelations from God. However, Islam puts more of an emphasis on worship than Baha'i; the emphasis in the Baha'i Faith is recognition of the Manifestation of God for this age, who we believe is Baha'ullah.
“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 330-331
The reason it is so important to recognize the Manifestation for this age is because that is the way we come to knowledge of God and what God's will for us in this age.
“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5
Loving God is also very important in the Baha'i Faith, so when I say worship what I really mean is love, not prostrating ourselves before God in prayer as Muslims do.. We were created to know and love God. Service to humanity is not our primary purpose but that is what we do out of love for God and His creation.
3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.
5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4
tigger2
Active Member
JWs consider men and angels being called gods to be a secondary (lower) meaning of theos/elohim much as the following do:
God and gods
The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meaning of theos and elohim ('a god'):
"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.
And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.
The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:
“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:
"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." - http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/john/johnson/john10.htm
Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:
Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”
The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”
Some of these (mostly) trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:
1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.
(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)
And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.
And the earliest Christians like the highly respected scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”
Last edited:
Thank you for pointing out {John 10:29}
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
Even in the material world, if it happens that a husband loves his wife very much, he may also call her "My God". But this doesn't mean, in this case, that his wife is greater than him
Thank you, again, for pointing out {John 14:28}. No one can deny that {John 14:28, ...for my Father is greater than I} does contradict {John 10:30, I and my Father are one} very clearly. And it would be non-sense accepting both as being true.
I have the impression you prefer {John 14:28} as many others do.
On my side, I chose {John 10:30} and left {John 14:28} to those who worship every word and every letter (of man made language) in their holy books; as the ancient worshipers do with every part in their holy man-made idols/statues.
And the reason for which I chose {John 10:30} is that, in my life, I never saw myself greater than anyone else and I never saw any human greater than me
Thank you for your reply. We can all choose John 10:30 'I and the Father are one' (Not I and the Father are 'One')
This oneness is in harmony with John 17:20-23 because Jesus prayed to his God that his followers be 'one' just as he and his Father are 'one'. Not being 'one' person but being 'one' in union together such as found at John 5:17.
The Jews hated Jesus because of what they claim Jesus said at John 5:18.
Jesus lets the Jews know that he can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing according to John 5:19; John 7:28-29; John 8:28 B; John 12:49-50.
I agree that we can say we never saw oneself greater than anyone else and never saw any human greater......
This is because we were all born ' after ' father Adam broke God's law and passed down imperfection to us.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was sinless. God sent His heavenly sinless Son to Earth for us.
Because we sin we can never see any sinning human greater than us.- Romans 5:6-8; Romans 5:12; Romans 5:21.
Faithful sinless Jesus paid the Ransom price for sin in order to free us from sin and its consequences of death.
P.S. There are No holy man-made idols/statues for Christians because Christians walk by faith (unsighted things)
- 2 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Corinthians 4:18.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Then why do you have pictures in your "Awake!" and "Watchtower" magazines?
Hi @tigger2;
Thank you for the clarification regarding your definition of “a god” in Jehovahs Witness theology.
Again, I like your use of data and references but realize some of this will venture into speculation and opinion.
Your quotes indicate the term “god” can be applied “by way of deference to magistrates” and others in positions of authority (judges, angels, prophets, etc), and sometimes as a "superlative” (i.e. “great”, “mighty”, etc.) or to “divine representatives” etc.
Are you able to describe what attributes qualified Jesus to be “a god” when John 1:1 says “and the Word was a god” in the beginning when the Word (Jesus) was with God the Father?
Do Jehovahs Witness theology feel that, in the beginning, Jesus was a judge, prophet, or somehow “great” or “mighty” or a divine representative of God the Father?
If so, can you speculate as to what attributes Jesus, as “the Word of God” had at that time that made him great or mighty?
What I am trying to get to is an examination of the underlying attributes that qualify Jesus as “the Word” of John 1:1 to deserve the appellation of “a god”.
Having asked you these questions, I must admit that I am not quite sure of the specific answers I would give to the same questions and I admit that any answer I gave would be tentative and speculative based on the early Judeo-Christian literature.
For example, "righteousness" alone would not seem to be a specific attribute for a being to have to be called "a God".
Psalms 82 Masoretic (81 in LXX) speaks of a God who stands in a congregation of the “divine”, among beings he calls “gods” (e.g. “among the gods (plural) he judges”). God then seems to take these beings he calls “gods” to task for not judging righteously.
While the gods of psalms 82:1 are taken to task for not judging righteously, they are not specifically identified as human judges. And their appellation as “gods’ do not seem to be associated with the attribute of being righteous or representing God in making unrighteous judgments.
If you are not sure of the answers to the specific questions I asked, this is perfectly fine as well. I realize we may be moving into areas of speculation.
Clear
ειφυτωσεω
Last edited:
tigger2
Active Member
............................................
The following is the conclusion to my much longer examination of John's concept of the Logos and Philo's teaching.
It is a result of my own investigation only and is not the WT's.
CONCLUSION
The fact that the writer of the Prologue of the Gospel of John did not give any explanation or comment at all concerning his concept of the Logos (the Word) means that he intended it to be understood by his readers from the standpoint of their own backgrounds. It has been determined by many trinitarian Bible scholars that his Gospel’s audience were Hellenistic Jews (Jews living in Greek-influenced lands).
It is also known that the pre-eminent religious spokesman for these Hellenistic Jews was Philo of Alexandria (Egypt) whose writings were well-known to Hellenistic Jews (and Christians) during the first few centuries A.D.
Furthermore all of the very earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John (including one dated to 100-125 AD – very close to the time of the original writing) have been found in Egypt (the home of Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism). The evidence of the spread of John’s Gospel shows it slowly spread outward from Hellenistic Egypt into the rest of the world.
So it is almost certain that the writer of the Prologue would have intended his Hellenistic Jewish readers to have understood the Logos as that concept which had been developed by the renowned Philo of Alexandria, Egypt. When he applied that term to the heavenly pre-existent Jesus, therefore, his intended readers would have properly understood it as a comparison to Philo’s Logos.
The further fact that the Gospel of John took so many of the distinctive terms and descriptions used by Philo to describe his Logos and applied those same terms to the Christ confirms the above conclusion. No other Bible writer used Logos in this way and no other Bible writer applied so many of Philo’s Logos descriptions to Christ!
Philo clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and frequently showed this in his writing by using “theos” without the article to refer to the Logos (“a god”) but used “theos” with the article when referring to God. Since John obviously based his Logos concept on Philo’s, we should expect him to use “theos” without the article to refer to the Logos exactly as he did at John 1:1c: “and the Word was a god.” Respected Christian writers of the first 3 centuries A.D. also showed this very understanding of Logos as used for the Christ!
A careful study of the Logos concept as used by John confirms the grammatical evidence (see the DEF, QUAL, and MARTIN studies) that John 1:1c is properly translated, “and the Word was a god” as found in the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most trinitarian scholars will do their utmost to deny this conclusion (for obvious reasons), but it is inevitable by any honest standard of evidence, reason, and objectivity.
The full study may be found here: Examining the Trinity: Logos (The 'Word')
Philo considered the Logos as an angel (the highest angel) and the one through whom God created.
Clear asked :
1)Do Jehovahs Witness theology feel that, in the beginning, Jesus was a judge, prophet, or somehow “great” or “mighty” or a divine representative of God the Father?
2)If so, can you speculate as to what attributes Jesus, as “the Word of God” had at that time that made him great or mighty? (post #154)
tigger2 responded : "So it is almost certain that the writer of the Prologue would have intended his Hellenistic Jewish readers to have understood the Logos as that concept which had been developed by the renowned Philo of Alexandria, Egypt. When he applied that term to the heavenly pre-existent Jesus, therefore, his intended readers would have properly understood it as a comparison to Philo’s Logos.
and
Philo considered the Logos as an angel (the highest angel) and the one through whom God created. (post #155)
Hi @tigger2
WHAT ATTRIBUTES DID JESUS HAVE AS "THE WORD OF GOD" IN THE BEGINNING THAT JUSTIFIED HIM BEING DESIGNATED AS "A GOD" (JOHN 1:1)
Your reply seemed to represent a bit of what philo the Jew might have thought about Jesus as “a god” and the historical data was fine.
However, I could not find the answers to my specific questions in that post.
I could not tell if why the Jehovahs Witnesses think Jesus, as the Word of God, was designated as "a god".
You mentioned that Judges, prophets and other great individuals were called "gods".
Do the Jehovahs Witnesses believe that, in the beginning, as "the Word of God", Jesus was a judge, prophet, or somehow “great” or “mighty” or a divine representative of God the Father and thus, for this reason, was designated as “a god”? Or was there different or additional reasons Jesus, as "the Word of God" was designated "a god" in Jehovahs Witness Theology?
Also, I could not tell what specific attributes Jesus, as “the Word of God” had "in the beginning" that made him "great or mighty" in Jehovahs Witness theology (and thus deserved the designation as “a god”).
Was there a specific response to that specific question that I missed in your last post?
Thanks for any clarification you can provide Tigger2.
Clear
ειφυσεφιω
1)Do Jehovahs Witness theology feel that, in the beginning, Jesus was a judge, prophet, or somehow “great” or “mighty” or a divine representative of God the Father?
2)If so, can you speculate as to what attributes Jesus, as “the Word of God” had at that time that made him great or mighty? (post #154)
tigger2 responded : "So it is almost certain that the writer of the Prologue would have intended his Hellenistic Jewish readers to have understood the Logos as that concept which had been developed by the renowned Philo of Alexandria, Egypt. When he applied that term to the heavenly pre-existent Jesus, therefore, his intended readers would have properly understood it as a comparison to Philo’s Logos.
and
Philo considered the Logos as an angel (the highest angel) and the one through whom God created. (post #155)
Hi @tigger2
WHAT ATTRIBUTES DID JESUS HAVE AS "THE WORD OF GOD" IN THE BEGINNING THAT JUSTIFIED HIM BEING DESIGNATED AS "A GOD" (JOHN 1:1)
Your reply seemed to represent a bit of what philo the Jew might have thought about Jesus as “a god” and the historical data was fine.
However, I could not find the answers to my specific questions in that post.
I could not tell if why the Jehovahs Witnesses think Jesus, as the Word of God, was designated as "a god".
You mentioned that Judges, prophets and other great individuals were called "gods".
Do the Jehovahs Witnesses believe that, in the beginning, as "the Word of God", Jesus was a judge, prophet, or somehow “great” or “mighty” or a divine representative of God the Father and thus, for this reason, was designated as “a god”? Or was there different or additional reasons Jesus, as "the Word of God" was designated "a god" in Jehovahs Witness Theology?
Also, I could not tell what specific attributes Jesus, as “the Word of God” had "in the beginning" that made him "great or mighty" in Jehovahs Witness theology (and thus deserved the designation as “a god”).
Was there a specific response to that specific question that I missed in your last post?
Thanks for any clarification you can provide Tigger2.
Clear
ειφυσεφιω
tigger2
Active Member
I found this in the WT publication Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2, p. 54 - “The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all [other] things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called ‘a god’ or mighty one.”
I don't think the WTS has gone into speculative detail about Jesus' qualities other than he is the only creation by God Himself, the first of many (produced through Jesus himself), the second most-powerful spirit person in existence and he continues to carry out God's will.
Obviously he is also our King and Savior, but that came from his fleshly sacrifice. It is believed that before that he had sometimes appeared as the Angel of Jehovah.
Last edited:
Hi @tigger2
This is the answer I was looking for and I think it is a good answer.
Thanks so much Tigger2 for doing the research and for your patience and for taking the time to answer these questions.
Clear
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
Poisonous coitus?
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is perversion when a male does it to a female as well.