Jesus ain't God.

[nothead]

Abrahamic Monotheism was the religion of the first gen saints of Jesus.

Including Christ.

This says it all. Really no more needs to be said unless the hagglers want to haggle.

So then what happened since then? How did we get off the narrow path?

 

[Desert Snake]

Abrahamic Monotheism was the religion of the first gen saints of Jesus.

Including Christ.

This says it all. Really no more needs to be said unless the hagglers want to haggle.

So then what happened since then? How did we get off the narrow path?

'Abrahamic Monotheism' in the form of Xianity means Jesus was G-d, through the Spirit. If He wasn't, it wasn't "Abrahamic monotheism" they were practicing.
Following a religious heretic who said to worship the Father yet spoke against the previous traditional laws of the Covenant, this isn't kosher for redefining concepts in the previous Covenant, random itinerant Rabbis don't have that authority.
You can't say "keep the law", and "here are some revisions to the law" at the same time, it means New or Continuation Covenant, not the same teachings.

 

[Katzpur]

Abrahamic Monotheism was the religion of the first gen saints of Jesus.

Including Christ.

This says it all. Really no more needs to be said unless the hagglers want to haggle.

So then what happened since then? How did we get off the narrow path?

Quick question...

Are you saying, "Jesus Christ is not the Almighty God, the Eternal Father"? Or are you saying, "Jesus Christ is not divine but is just a good man"?

 

[Sabour]

To answer your question

1- The scribes

2- People who know but decide to hide things

3- blind faith without questionsing things.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Abrahamic Monotheism was the religion of the first gen saints of Jesus.

Including Christ.

This says it all. Really no more needs to be said unless the hagglers want to haggle.

So then what happened since then? How did we get off the narrow path?

Does it not say he was made perfect? If that is so, and Hebrews says he is God, then why could he now not be God? Perhaps our understanding of God is not good

 

[Nada]

Does it not say he was made perfect? If that is so, and Hebrews says he is God, then why could he now not be God? Perhaps our understanding of God is not good

Adam and Eve were perfect and they were not God.Although the holy scriptures calls Jesus God or Mighty God,it never calls him Almighty God.

 

[nothead]

You are right but still a better theory of 'elohim' would behoove JW's.

Instead of using the word "a god" or the idea that Jesus was an angel or archangel, the word "elohim" will better suffice.

Because this was the way Hebrews used the word for "God" or "god" in the good sense, not being a false "god."

Elohim in the good sense had 5-6 different categories of being or ontology. No evidence Jesus was an angel ontology or an archangel ontology.

Unless I have your theology wrong in which case I will apologize in advance.

 

[nothead]

'Abrahamic Monotheism' in the form of Xianity means Jesus was G-d, through the Spirit. If He wasn't, it wasn't "Abrahamic monotheism" they were practicing.
Following a religious heretic who said to worship the Father yet spoke against the previous traditional laws of the Covenant, this isn't kosher for redefining concepts in the previous Covenant, random itinerant Rabbis don't have that authority.
You can't say "keep the law", and "here are some revisions to the law" at the same time, it means New or Continuation Covenant, not the same teachings.

I agree to the extent I understand your post. Although you would have to defn what "Law" means to you in the ideal sense.

 

[nothead]

Quick question...

Are you saying, "Jesus Christ is not the Almighty God, the Eternal Father"? Or are you saying, "Jesus Christ is not divine but is just a good man"?

I would say Jesus is "elohim" under YHWH Elohim and over the angels. Who are also "elohim."

Amen. That means verdad. That means truly said. I self-said that I am truly said. Must be an illogical fallacy but what the heck.

 

[Katzpur]

I would say Jesus is "elohim" under YHWH Elohim and over the angels. Who are also "elohim."

So you don't believe Elohim to be divine? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Desert Snake]

Adam and Eve were perfect and they were not God.Although the holy scriptures calls Jesus God or Mighty God,it never calls him Almighty God.

Adam and Eve weren't 'perfect', that's why they ate of the apple and got kicked out of the Garden.

-Jesus in man form had 'man attrributes' besides being of the Spirit, this is all pretty clear in the Bible.

Why do you think the three wise men anointed Jesus in the manger? Whether you believe they anointed Jesus or not, the importance is that it means Jesus was "Divine" at birth, He didn't need a Baptism, or to 'figure out' the right "teachings" etc.

 

[nothead]

To answer your question

1- The scribes

2- People who know but decide to hide things

3- blind faith without questionsing things.

Faith is the "seeing" of things not apparent. A spiritual man looks for the spiritual things and catches glimpses of these and their import.

The end destiny of their import is what he has faith in.

But no hints in the Bible tell of Jesus as the One True God. In fact he always spoke of "God" as the Father only, separate from himself, amen.

 

[nothead]

Adam and Eve weren't 'perfect', that's why they ate of the apple and got kicked out of the Garden.

-Jesus in man form had 'man attrributes' besides being of the Spirit, this is all pretty clear in the Bible.

Why do you think the three wise men anointed Jesus in the manger? Did you think that is some 'extra' story added for embellishment? Whether you believe they anointed Jesus or not, the importance is that it means Jesus was "Divine" at birth, He didn't need a Baptism, or to 'figure out' the right "teachings" etc.

Thumbs up, sounds wise so far. To nothead who gloms onto truth when he can.

 

[nothead]

Does it not say he was made perfect? If that is so, and Hebrews says he is God, then why could he now not be God? Perhaps our understanding of God is not good

You are spot on, bro. The Elohim Theology of nothead is much behoovin'.

Behoovin' to be groovin' that is.

Elohim Theology: "God" was said to be "elohim" mostly in the Hebrew mother tongue. This word encompasses 5-6 ontologies at least in the Bible, in the GOOD sense as opposed to false "gods" or elohim.

Now we can see where the confusion lies. THEOS is a direct translation of "elohim" and mostly means the One True God. But in reference to Jesus, no.

Now you know the REST of the story, groovin'. Remember we be behoovin' to be groovin', groovin'.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree to the extent I understand your post. Although you would have to defn what "Law" means to you in the ideal sense.

If I were to say what is the 'ideal' laws for Xians in general, it would be a 'Continuation Covenant' with some of the revisions spoken of by Jesus.
But, people are different, I'm ok with that.

 

[Nada]

You are right but still a better theory of 'elohim' would behoove JW's.

Instead of using the word "a god" or the idea that Jesus was an angel or archangel, the word "elohim" will better suffice.

Because this was the way Hebrews used the word for "God" or "god" in the good sense, not being a false "god."

Elohim in the good sense had 5-6 different categories of being or ontology. No evidence Jesus was an angel ontology or an archangel ontology.

Unless I have your theology wrong in which case I will apologize in advance.

The Hebrew word ʼelo·him′ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·him′ is the plural of ʼeloh′ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·him′ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·him′ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·him′] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·him′] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·him′ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·him′, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh′ ha·ʼElo·him′, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·him′ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·him′ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·him′ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·him′ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·him′, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.


God — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[nothead]

For me it means some Torah laws, some 'revisions' we read about in the NT, and some other things not necessarily found in the Bible or standard Bibles.
That however is fairly personal as well, I don't expect people to act similarly to me, I don't think it would even make sense for many people.
If I were to say what is the 'ideal' laws for Xians in general, it would be a 'Continuation Covenant' with some of the revisions spoken of by Jesus.
But, even then, people are different, I'm ok with that.

I think Mosaic Law meaning the Ten and the Shema would suffice. Although I am open to change, since the Golden Rule seems to have come after, and Jesus in Mark 12 said this was the second most important one after Shema.

But in general the Great Shema Law of Love through the beloved Son to his and our God is the One and Only to a great degree for me. The Ten even fall under this one.

 

[Nada]

First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os&#8242 in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os′] and [ho the·os′] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os′]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os′] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579.


Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Nada]

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

▪ Put simply, the answer is yes. The custom of being called by more than one name is common in many cultures. The same situation occurs with names in the Bible. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also named Israel. (Genesis 35:10) The apostle Peter is named in five different ways—Symeon, Simon, Peter, Cephas, and Simon Peter. (Matthew 10:2; 16:16; John 1:42; Acts 15:7, 14) How can we be sure that Michael is another name for Jesus? Consider the following Scriptural evidence.

The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel. At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the prince of you people.” Next, at Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.”

A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7, which describes “Michael and his angels” as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven.

Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God’s people, even confronting Jehovah’s greatest enemy, Satan.

Jude verse 9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible. The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.

In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?”) and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”)—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”
It is important to note that the human birth of Jesus was not the beginning of his life. Before Jesus was born, Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would conceive a child by means of holy spirit and that she should name the child Jesus. (Luke 1:31) During his ministry, Jesus often spoke of his prehuman existence.—John 3:13; 8:23, 58.

So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.


http://http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250?q=Jesus+Michael+the+Archangel&p=par

 

[nothead]

URL listings which are not allowed for nothead until 15 posts

I don't disagree with any of this from a quick glance. But again I would repeat what I said about angels. There is no evidence Jesus is called an angel at all, even though the Son of God and angels are both elohim. Jesus is OVER the angels and UNDER YHWH Elohim.