Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

[Desert Snake]

I didn't say that the usage of the word "God" is vague.

That seems to be your entire argument. If that isn't your argument, you aren't presenting it very clearly.

I don't have a problem with your general idea, but you aren't following it. If you were following your own argument, you wouldn't use God, as a name. You would just write, whatever entity, you worship.

\the other stuff, is wrong, but unecessary to your argument.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

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.

What are you trying to do, Oeste?
It's because I read the Bible, have read it through several times (as JW's are encouraged to do), that I notice these willful "conflations"!

You yourself posted Matthew 2:11, which explicitly says the Magi followed the "star" to a house, where Jesus and family were. So even the star, depicted at nativity scenes as being over the manger, is wrong. It was over a house, arriving sometime after (months? a year?) Jesus' birth.

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.

Should truth be sacrificed in favor of dramatic effect? Luke 16:10

You put too much spin on the facts.

Tell me, do you justify war also, like most of christendom?

 

[Oeste]

What are you trying to do, Oeste?

I am TRYING to get you to answer a few questions. Instead, you keep popping up rabbit holes like this one.

If you can't answer my questions just say so...perhaps Npeace has them.

It's because I read the Bible, have read it through several times (as JW's are encouraged to do), that I notice these willful "conflations"!

OF COURSE THE CONFLATION IS WILLFUL! It's a NATIVITY SCENE, not a video!!!
If you want the step by step, verse by verse description all you need do is open the bible like I suggested.

You yourself posted Matthew 2:11, which explicitly says the Magi followed the "star" to a house, where Jesus and family were. So even the star, depicted at nativity scenes as being over the manger, is wrong. It was over a house, arriving sometime after (months? a year?) Jesus' birth.

The typical Nativity scene depicts the birth of Jesus, the star, and the Magi. Jesus was born in a MANGER, not a house. The Maji who follow the star comes later. By the time the Magi got there Mary and Joseph had moved out of the manger.

I don't know of ANY church that claims Jesus was still in the manger when the Magi arrived. Do you?

It is not necessary to depict thousands of slightly different nativity scenes in order to describe this event. You are too involved in your legalisms, and this sacred WT "smite" Witnesses attempt to levy on the Christian church is bogus.

Should truth be sacrificed in favor of dramatic effect? Luke 16:10

You can tell us this yourself.

​

You appear very sharp eyed with Nativity scenes. Are you equally sharp-eyed with Armageddon scenes? If so, can you point us to the scripture describing smiling people, a family joyously lifting an infant in the air, with a Christian church erupting in the background?

You put too much spin on the facts.

Not so with Jehovah Witnesses! I'm sure the above scene is faithfully described in scripture , right down to the cross and steeple. You just need to show us where.

Tell me, do you justify war also, like most of christendom?

No more rabbit holes and I am taking no new questions from you on this thread HockeyCowboy. I've answered every question you've asked, gone down every rabbit hole that comes to your mind, but I am still waiting for my questions to be answered.

Answer my questions. If you can't, fine, just say so and we'll move on.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't know of ANY church that claims Jesus was still in the manger when the Magi arrived. Do you?

Grief!
The nativity scene claims that! I think even a Christmas song, sung in church, states it.

 

[iam1me]

That seems to be your entire argument. If that isn't your argument, you aren't presenting it very clearly.

I don't have a problem with your general idea, but you aren't following it. If you were following your own argument, you wouldn't use God, as a name. You would just write, whatever entity, you worship.

\the other stuff, is wrong, but unecessary to your argument.

I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding that the term God is applied to those who are not literally God in scripture. Probably you just don't want to understand this simple truth.

 

[iam1me]

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 clarifies who is being referred to as gods in John 10:35 "If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside"

I think it would be fair to extend the application to Christians in general - but at this point in time it would have referred to the Jewish People.

 

[iam1me]

I didn't say it wasn't. How does that help your argument? It makes your argument meaningless, since you accept that Jesus, is called God. So, what is your argument? What are you saying?
You also said that people etc were called god almighty, YHWH was used to refer to angels, so why would you say that Jesus, isn't god almighty? You said all these names were used for more than one being...so, why would moses, be g-d almighty, or whatever, and not Jesus? Your argument has no answers to any of this.

By recognizing the fact that the word "God" is appropriately applied to angels and men who are not literally God, you are acknowledge that the term has a secondary connotation which may be appropriately applied to such individuals. My point is that it is far more reasonable and appropriate to interpret "God" with this secondary connotation when applied to Jesus than to understand the primary connotation - that is to say, that he is literally God Almighty himself.

It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp - I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding this.

"Them". Not, 'you'. Referring to Psalms. If them, means you, to you, then anything can mean anything, in the Bible.

Them = the ones to whom the word of God came. Which is the Jewish People.

 

[Oeste]

Grief!
The nativity scene claims that! I think even a Christmas song, sung in church, states it.

Is that the scene with the talking animals?

Shocking! It's just amazing what they teach our kids nowadays. I even heard some of them singing along!

​

What about the glowing light around Jesus' head? Has the Watchtower published an
exposè warning us of this "Christendom lie" as well?

​

Or is the shocking truth even more sinister...there was no angel reading on the roof, no angel blowing a horn, no herders driving sheep through the manger, no bright star dividing the manger in half, and absolutely, positively, no red-haired Mary?

BTW, what about those questions I posted? Any answers yet??

 

[iam1me]

Who calls Jesus g-d almighty? And moses wasn't called g-d almighty, anyway. Jesus has a name. Jesus. Jesus is called God.
Is jesus another god? Is jesus just a man? What are you saying?

First, because you keep bringing it up, "God" is never a name. It isn't even God Almighty's name. It would be better to understand "God" as a title.

Moses is called God (elohim) in Exodus 7:1. How do you interpret this fact? Because he obviously isn't literally God. Or - again, the various angels that have been addressed as God - like the angel in the burning bush in Exodus 3?

those are gods? those are your gods?

There is only one true God. And despite angels and men being appropriately addressed as God - none of these should be literally regarded as God Almighty himself. This really isn't as difficult as you are making it out to be.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is only one true God. And despite angels and men being appropriately addressed as God - none of these should be literally regarded as God Almighty himself. This really isn't as difficult as you are making it out to be.

You didn't answer my question.
According to your beliefs,
Is Jesus

Another god,

A man,

Or what?

 

[iam1me]

You didn't answer my question.
According to your beliefs,
Is Jesus

Another god,

A man,

Or what?

Jesus is who he claimed to be: The Son of God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus is who he claimed to be: The Son of God.

And that is literal? Or just a title that many had?

 

[iam1me]

And that is literal? Or just a title that many had?

Many are called sons/daughters of God, though he is uniquely called the Only Begotten Son of God. And yes - unless there is a good reason to interpret "Son" in a non-literal sense then we should favor a more literal understanding of the term.

 

[iam1me]

Is this accurate, for your theology...
Father/presumably Yahweh, or whatever name you use//the head god
Son/Jesus//demi-god, separate from the father
H. Spirit//? No idea what your idea is about this
□
If so, do you consider, Jesus, a demi-god, who is a Demi-god, or, a demi-god, who is a another god?

I'm a monotheist. There is only one true God - the Father.

"God" as a title maybe (and is) applied to those who serve God and do his will. For in carrying out his will, in being his agents, they are God's representatives. In this sense, angels and men are called God.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm a monotheist. There is only one true God - the Father.

"God" as a title maybe (and is) applied to those who serve God and do his will. For in carrying out his will, in being his agents, they are God's representatives. In this sense, angels and men are called God.

People have different definitions of monotheist, right or wrong, so, which is your definition

•there is only one god

•you worship only one god, but there can be other gods

 

[iam1me]

People have different definitions of monotheist, right or wrong, so, which is your definition

•there is only one god

•you worship only one god, but there can be other gods

Monotheism is the belief that there is one God, not that you worship one of many gods.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm a monotheist. There is only one true God - the Father.

"God" as a title maybe (and is) applied to those who serve God and do his will. For in carrying out his will, in being his agents, they are God's representatives. In this sense, angels and men are called God.

In other words, no, and you like using confusing and obscure language, that no one else does.

Monotheism is the belief that there is one God, not that you worship one of many gods.

 

[iam1me]

In other words, no, and you like using confusing and obscure language, that no one else does.

I'm afraid you are the only one who has trouble understanding what is being said. Perhaps you are new to the study of theology?

 

[iam1me]

No, it's about using words that clearly convey ideas, when it comes to this sort of thing. Saying jesus isnt 'god almighty', when everyone just uses the name god, then using the name god, which is used for jesus, in the bible, to only mean your entity, singular, isnt good conveyance of your beliefs, or even ideas. I dont care about your beliefs, but your usage isnt clear.

My usage is consistent with how the term is used in the scriptures. And no - the scriptures aren't always entirely clear, which is why you must study to understand what is being said.

 

[iam1me]

I've perused enough nt to know that things that arent clear, you cant always argue. You have to find other verses, with more context. Otherwise, it isnt an argument, its just stating beliefs, with verses that may or may not support the argument.
Anyways, adios

Indeed - hence I've provided plenty of supporting scripture. And - as I've said before - this really isn't complicated. Go study.