The Jewish Jehovah's Witness.

[Deeje]

Jesus says that he came to strengthen the law, not abolish it. Then how could "you" say that he came to abolish it?

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he did not abolish its principles but summed them up in a new law that he gave to his disciples.

Matt 22:35-40:
"And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Matt 5:17:
“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill."

Later, when gentiles became Christians, they were not forced to become Jewish proselytes but became followers of Jesus Christ directly, which meant that they were not under Jewish law, but under the law of the Christ....the law of love. No circumcision or sabbath observance was required of them. Because of Christ's sacrifice, no animals needed to ever be sacrificed again.

When did God or Jesus say that the old law was for the Jews only?

Luke 24:27:
"And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures." The Mosaic Law was not given to any other people. Jesus was sent exclusively to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24)

There was no Christianity separation from Judaism. Jesus preached to the Jews. The Jews didnt convert to Christianity, they just followed Jesus. Jesus didnt name the religion, we named it ourselves.

Who is "we"? (Acts 11:26)

Once Christianity was established, the Jewish Christians were forced out of the synagogues and onto the porches, but later they met in people's homes. (Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1-4)
There was much hostility towards those who belonged to "The Way" as the early disciples were known. Saul of Tarsus was a foremost persecutor of these ones. (Acts 9:2; 19:9; 22:4) His 360 degree turn around was at first treated with suspicion, but Paul proved that he was a faithful apostle, in the service of his brothers, though not one of the twelve.

When you ask from me what God;s plan of salvation is, I would say this

• Believe in one God.
• There is no deity but God.
• Nothing is divine, only God is. Not your ego, your children, wealth, health or love. If you understand this, your will be at peace. You will love things but not consider them divine enough to sin for them or kill for them.
• Believe in all the prophets and not distinguish between one another
• Do righteous deeds
• Believe in scripture
• Free slaves.
  
• Spend on your kin, neighbour, wayfarer, and those in need
• Treat all races, colours and sexes with respect and not mock them
• Fight for justice, of yourself and of others
• Live a peaceful and submissive life
• But not bow down to aggression, while not being the aggressor.

Well, I could go on. This is the Quranic formula.

But what is your view of salvation?

This is actually a list of things that qualify one for salvation. I agree with most of what you say here with minor qualifications. But you didn't mention the most important aspect of salvation. It is the very foundation upon which salvation rests....the sin atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Whom we believe is the divine son of God, though not God himself and certainly not equal to his Father.)

God's plan of salvation was first indicated in Eden shortly after the fall of Adam. (Gen 3:15) The "sacred secret" about who the players were in this prophesy were not revealed until after Christ's death and resurrection. At Pentecost all was revealed by holy spirit and the truth about the long awaited kingdom of God was made clear. The ones chosen by Jesus to enter a "new covenant" on the night of his last Passover, were his apostles, who formed the foundation of God's new arrangement, foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-33.

“Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.”
33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.”

This was foretelling the new arrangement for worship instituted by Jesus. It actually fulfilled what God had planned all along....the "blessing of all the nations" through the faith of men like Abraham. The "chosen ones" with "the heavenly calling" (Heb 3:1) were going to be taken to heaven to rule with Christ. Jews had always understood that the kingdom of God would be established on earth, but the mystery was solved when it was revealed that the heavenly kingdom would rule over earthly subjects. (Rev 21:2-5) God's original purpose for this earth and the life upon it would be restored.

 

[firedragon]

Matt 22:35-40:
"And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Matt 5:17:
“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill."

Later, when gentiles became Christians, they were not forced to become Jewish proselytes but became followers of Jesus Christ directly, which meant that they were not under Jewish law, but under the law of the Christ....the law of love. No circumcision or sabbath observance was required of them. Because of Christ's sacrifice, no animals needed to ever be sacrificed again.

1. Jesus does not say "Jehovah". I know this point is not relevant but lets not be hypocritical translaters. It says Kurion ton Theon.
2. These two commandments in no way says that every teaching in the OT has to be shunned and new ones are to be adopted.
3. I came not to destroy but to fulfill. Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the pharisees you shall not enter the kindgom of heaven. Not a jot or a tittle will be changed....... etc. Do I need to quote the bible reference? I am sure you know all of this.

Nothing changed.

Jesus was circumcised. The Christ was. Well, thats also a different subject. Not a question of salvatoin.

Who is "we"? (Acts 11:26)

Once Christianity was established, the Jewish Christians were forced out of the synagogues and onto the porches, but later they met in people's homes. (Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1-4)
There was much hostility towards those who belonged to "The Way" as the early disciples were known. Saul of Tarsus was a foremost persecutor of these ones. (Acts 9:2; 19:9; 22:4) His 360 degree turn around was at first treated with suspicion, but Paul proved that he was a faithful apostle, in the service of his brothers, though not one of the twelve.

We. People. Show me where the religion was named Christianity.

This is actually a list of things that qualify one for salvation. I agree with most of what you say here with minor qualifications. But you didn't mention the most important aspect of salvation. It is the very foundation upon which salvation rests....the sin atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Whom we believe is the divine son of God, though not God himself and certainly not equal to his Father.)

From my point of view, no one has to die for our salvation. I mean from from the Islamic perspective. There is no rationality or scriptural proof.

But from the biblical point of view, it was paul who established this science. Not Jesus.

You quoted Jeremiah. If you quote Jeremiah 31 you must also realise that you dont need to preach to others. They will know it already.

34 No longer will they teach their neighbors, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD.

And you quote Hebrews, the one book no one even has a clue who wrote. Then you quote Revelations which is a dream apparently.

Not Jesus.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Three "persons" doesn't equal three gods?
Weird math. 1+1+1= 3.........1+1+1 never = 1 in any mathematical equation I know of. God is not illogical. He is "one Jehovah" (Deut 6:4) If he was a triune being, then why not reveal this to his chosen nation and more importantly to his representatives, the prophets? There is no trinity in the OT and the Jews still don't believe that God is anything but a single entity. The trinity came into existence in an apostate church hundreds of years after Christ died, it is not a teaching of any Bible writer. It is not a teaching of Jesus Christ. (John 17:3)

How do three individual entities inhabit one head? How can one be the "Father" and the other the "son" and yet be co-eternal? How can one "person" know things that the other doesn't when they exist in the same head? How does one inhabit an entirely different realm in an entirely different state of being and still be equal with the one who stayed in heaven? Why did one pray to the other for help and strength if he was still "God incarnate"?
Why is the third and equal part rarely mentioned when the Father and son are always together?

If a human presents with multiple personalities, they are treated for mental illness, but do you think that being made in God's image, that multiple personalities could be a natural and beneficial thing? You might need to re-write the psychiatry text books.

I really enjoy listening to JW's trying to prove the lies of Christendom, but supporting their own false teachings.

Weird math. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7.......1+1+1+1+1+1+1 never = 1 in any mathematical equation I know of. JW's make their "equals of Jesus", the GB, greater than God Himself. God, the creator of everything, even humans, cannot exist as 3 persons, it's illogical, but 7 humans can exist as one slave?????


Dan 12:4 (ESVST) 4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." (This is one of the verses JW's use to prove the "new light" they're getting today, correct?)


The JW's and their slave didn't come into existence for 1,000's of years after Christ died. There is no future appointment of the slave in scripture.


JW's need to let the teacher of the church (the Holy Spirit) teach them, and not some self proclaimed equals of Jesus!!

Col 2:8-9 (ESVST) 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Is the Glory of God and the glory of angels one and the same? Is the glory of angels equal with the Glory of God? I say no. If it's not the same, and Jesus was just an angel, why did He say,

Jn 17:4-5 (ESVST) 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

If Jesus was just an angel, why wouldn't He say, "with the glory I had with the angels before the world existed"? If Jesus is not God, but when we die we go to God's memory until the resurrection, why did Stephen call out,

Act 7:59-60 (ESVST) 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, " Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Isn't that blasphemy? Shouldn't Stephen have "called on the name of Jehovah"? Rom 10:13 (NWT) 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah* will be saved.”

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The "authority" he has on earth up to the time when he comes as judge, is over his own followers. These are the ones who defer to him as Lord and teacher, obeying him in all things.
The world at large is not yet subject to him...(in case you haven't noticed.) If Jesus is exercising authority over the earth right now, then explain why there is so much violence and chaos....
Rev 12:7-12 explains it completely.

If one believes the teachings of the JW's, I can see what you are saying, but I don't believe what the WT and GB teach.

You are still saying that Jesus lied when He said "ALL" authority was given to Him in Heaven and on "EARTH". If "ALL" was given to Him, what is left?

You believe what you write because you have been deceived into believing Jesus came in 1914 and reigns as King. If He actually did come, He is not doing a very good job at ruling, is He?

Then there are many JW's who are professing to be His followers, but are not.

I never said Jesus is exercising His authority over the earth right now, did I? Must you put words in my mouth? I said Jesus said, "all authority has been given Him, in Heaven and on earth". Jesus will not use His authority until He comes in the Kingdom.

It actually says,

Mat 28:18-20 (ESVST) 18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Any idea what He meant by that?

 

[rosends]

What??????????????????????????

I see you are Jewish. There is no YHWH in the Torah? Alright then, I will burn in the sun and lick the himalayas.

Well, again you are Jewish. Thus, I cant tell you I know it because it will sound hypocritical. But what I can tell you is to refer to and defy

1. Ezra Zion Melamed
2. Strongs Concordance
3. Nas exhaustive concordance

Peace

First, read what I wrote -- there is no Yahweh." The question of whether there is a YHWH is separate. But because the text was written in Hebrew, one could make the argument that there is no "YHWH" as they are English letters, so have fun burning and licking. As to the word "Yahweh" that would require vowel points which are absent from a Torah. The ones seen in Masoretic texts are intentionally wrong (they are transposed from another word or words in order to prevent anyone from saying the right ones). So deriving "Yahweh" from the printed vowel points is erroneous.
Did you have any other questions?

And if you are looking for a good Concordance, you might want to check out Even Shoshan's. I can get you a link if you would like.

 

[firedragon]

First, read what I wrote -- there is no Yahweh." The question of whether there is a YHWH is separate. But because the text was written in Hebrew, one could make the argument that there is no "YHWH" as they are English letters, so have fun burning and licking. As to the word "Yahweh" that would require vowel points which are absent from a Torah. The ones seen in Masoretic texts are intentionally wrong (they are transposed from another word or words in order to prevent anyone from saying the right ones). So deriving "Yahweh" from the printed vowel points is erroneous.
Did you have any other questions?

And if you are looking for a good Concordance, you might want to check out Even Shoshan's. I can get you a link if you would like.

1. That makes it childish to say there is no Yahweh in the bible. In the English version Ive seen Yahweh, In the sentuagint its YHWH or sometimes Kurios, in the hebrew version its YHWH but we henerally pronounce it Yahweh. Any bible scholar does.
2. Everyone knows that with out the vowel points you dont know how YHWH is pronounced, but thanks for enlightening us anyway if it gives you some pleasure you dont get in your normal life. I only use the mostly used version and I quoted one of the foremost Jewish Scholars who assessed thtat Yahweh is the most probable pronunciation. Your scholar.
3. I have heard with my own ears enough, the Shema Israelu Yahweh ...... prayer pronouncing it Yahweh. It could be wrong completely, but that does not make a difference in this discussion.
4. I find it difficult to follow Even Shoshan's concordance. I am not a hebrew scholar or expert. And its a bit difficult to use. Thanks but I am happy with the older ones.
5. You said there is no word like Hawah in the Hebrew language. Show me that it doesnt.Again, is it the vowel points your issue is with?

Any thing else??

I didnt know Jews were so arrogant and jumpy.

 

[rosends]

1. That makes it childish to say there is no Yahweh in the bible. In the English version Ive seen Yahweh, In the sentuagint its YHWH or sometimes Kurios, in the hebrew version its YHWH but we henerally pronounce it Yahweh. Any bible scholar does.

"Any bible scholar does"? That's your argument? So if any bible scholar is wrong, you are Ok with that? Basically, what you have seen in English is simply wrong. I would prefer continuing this using Hebrew if we are going to talk about the bible. How's your Hebrew? I mean, that's what the bible was written in so if we want to look for a word there, we should read it in the source language.

2. Everyone knows that with out the vowel points you dont know how YHWH is pronounced, but thanks for enlightening us anyway if it gives you some pleasure you dont get in your normal life. I only use the mostly used version and I quoted one of the foremost Jewish Scholars who assessed thtat Yahweh is the most probable pronunciation. Your scholar.

So everyone knows it is wrong (which means that it isn't actually in the text...) but you like it anyway. Perfect. How exactly do your scholars come up with the most probable pronunciation? Jewish scholars don't have the pronunciation. That's like a thing with us.

3. I have heard with my own ears enough, the Shema Israelu Yahweh ...... prayer pronouncing it Yahweh. It could be wrong completely, but that does not make a difference in this discussion.

Not only is it wrong (which always makes a difference) but the words you so poorly transliterated would never be read with "Yahweh" in it. If you "heard" it that way then it wasn't from anyone who knows Hebrew.

4. I find it difficult to follow Even Shoshan's concordance. I am not a hebrew scholar or expert. And its a bit difficult to use. Thanks but I am happy with the older ones.

Even Shoshan is clear and well organized. Why rely on others? If you are not a Hebrew scholar then how can you assert facts about Hebrew which are flatly rejected by people who speak Hebrew?

5. So you still stand with your point that Hawah does not mean to be, exist? Please show me.

OK, let me explain. Hebrew has no "W". The ancient pronunciation of the vav/waw was, according to those who study these things (and Yemenite Jews) somewhere between the v and w sounds. Of course, the nearest Hebrew word to "Hawah" does not have a vav in it. You see, there is NO Hebrew word like "Hawah." There is a word "Hayah" which means "was" and there is a word "hoveh" which means "present tense" (it is a grammatical term). The nearest word in the present tense indicating existence is "lehiyot", the infinitive form, meaning "to be." The laughable translation of ehyeh asher ehyeh "I am that I am" is so egregiously wrong because the verb form there is in the future tense. Do you still want to insist that the word "Hawah" exists and means what you say? Remember, you have already conceded that you aren't a Hebrew scholar.

I didnt know Jews were so arrogant and jumpy. Do you live in Israel?

I didn't know you were so married to being wrong and that you like to take local challenges and then apply them to entire groups. Do you live in Cleveland?

 

[firedragon]

"Any bible scholar does"? That's your argument? So if any bible scholar is wrong, you are Ok with that? Basically, what you have seen in English is simply wrong. I would prefer continuing this using Hebrew if we are going to talk about the bible. How's your Hebrew? I mean, that's what the bible was written in so if we want to look for a word there, we should read it in the source language.

Any bible scholar knows that YAHWEH may not be the correct pronunciation. But also they say YAHWEH. Thats what I meant and you should understand what I say.
My Hebrew is bad. I am not Jewish. I am not a scholar of the Tanakh.

Even Shoshan is clear and well organized. Why rely on others? If you are not a Hebrew scholar then how can you assert facts about Hebrew which are flatly rejected by people who speak Hebrew?

I did not assert facts about Hebrew. I as almost all here know, again, that Yahweh may not be the correct pronunciation. OMG, do you still seek an opportunity puff up my friend. Dont do that.

OK, let me explain. Hebrew has no "W". The ancient pronunciation of the vav/waw was, according to those who study these things (and Yemenite Jews) somewhere between the v and w sounds. Of course, the nearest Hebrew word to "Hawah" does not have a vav in it. You see, there is NO Hebrew word like "Hawah." There is a word "Hayah" which means "was" and there is a word "hoveh" which means "present tense" (it is a grammatical term). The nearest word in the present tense indicating existence is "lehiyot", the infinitive form, meaning "to be." The laughable translation of ehyeh asher ehyeh "I am that I am" is so egregiously wrong because the verb form there is in the future tense. Do you still want to insist that the word "Hawah" exists and means what you say? Remember, you have already conceded that you aren't a Hebrew scholar.

So you delve in a letter. Lol. There is no V nor is there a W in Hebrew. Hebrew has its own alphabet like any other language.

And I agree that Ehye Asher Ehye is not I am what I am. But I also know that even if you use W or V in English, the Jews will pronounce it the way they do. Does not make a difference. And yes I concur, I am no Hebrew scholar.

Still, YHWH exists. Jehovah in that case is never right then because J is not there. Jesus did not come to change the law. Paul contradicts Jesus. And Psalms does say that you do not have to preach in the new covenant.

This is what we were discussing. If you are Jewish and you wanna teach the language, I am more than obliged and grateful to learn. But dont use your knowledge this way to be arrogantly insolent my friend. If you teach us with humility then others would learn the language. We all have a language that we know better than others. But lets not let our knowledge blind us enough to deviate from the point and topic to shove a letter down someones throat.

I am not gonna put my resume here, but lets not simply underestimate eachother for the sake of our own sarisfaction.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't know you were so married to being wrong and that you like to take local challenges and then apply them to entire groups. Do you live in Cleveland?

No. I dont live in Cleveland. I live so far from you you will have to catch at least a ten hour flight, maybe much longer.

I asked you if you live in Israel because I have associates there. I know a coordinator called Akiva Alon (Now murder me if I got the spellings wrong). He organised the theological conference at King David, Tel Aviv a couple of years back. I thought you might know him if you live there.

And just look what you do. You agree that there is "YHWH" as they are English letters in the bible, and then say there is no "W" in hebrew.

 

[Deeje]

It would be so much easier if you would learn to use the quote system...this color coding is hard to follow. The colors you choose do not show up well on my monitor. I have had to revert them to black in order to see them.

I really enjoy listening to JW's trying to prove the lies of Christendom, but supporting their own false teachings.

"Weird math. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7.......1+1+1+1+1+1+1 never = 1 in any mathematical equation I know of." JW's make their "equals of Jesus", the GB, greater than God Himself. God, the creator of everything, even humans, cannot exist as 3 persons, it's illogical, but 7 humans can exist as one slave?????

Elsewhere in scripture Jehovah calls his entire nation his "slave" (Isa 43:10) But human beings are not God. And the God of the Jews, who is also the God of Jesus Christ, did not have three heads, nor is he a slave to anyone.

Jesus promised to be with his slaves in the work he assigned to them before he left and said that if he found them faithfully carrying it out, he would appoint them over all his belongings upon his return. Since Jesus had no earthly "belongings" in a material sense, his "belongings" are his disciples.(Matt 28:19, 20; 24:45-47)

Dan 12:4 (ESVST) 4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

(This is one of the verses JW's use to prove the "new light" they're getting today, correct?)

The JW's and their slave didn't come into existence for 1,000's of years after Christ died. There is no future appointment of the slave in scripture.

OK, now let's take this bit in Dan 12:4:
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Now let's add verses 9, 10:
"Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand."

Now we have a time frame. The words of Daniel's prophesy were not to be understood until when? "The time of the end"...the very time in which we are now living. It was foretold that at this time "many" would "cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined"....but the "wicked" would understand nothing.... "insight" would be granted to those who cleansed and refined themselves in this period. The "slave" received his appointment when Christ was enthroned in heaven (also seen by Daniel in this time period. Dan 7:13, 14) and the last days began with the sign Jesus gave to indicate that he was now ruling as king in the heavens...."in the midst of his enemies". (Psalm 110:1, 2) This is the time period that Daniel wrote about.

Using the same Biblical calculation as the Jews used in Daniel's prophesy to indicate the time of Messiah's first appearance, so we use the same formula to indicate the time of his return.....we believe that this was 1914.
His apostles asked..."Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?"

The sign began with unprecedented war,followed by food shortages, pestilence, earthquakes and the love of humanity growing cold.

Jesus' "presence" is NOT his "coming". They are two separate events. If the "presence" (parousia) of the Lord was going to be a visible event, why bother giving a sign to indicate it was happening?....if it is visible to all as his "manifestation" will be, then what is the point of a sign?
Knowing when the "last days" began, does not tell us when they end. (Matt 24:42)

As regards the "cleansing, whitening and refining".....why would these things even be needed unless the spiritual condition of God's worshippers had again become like they were when Christ came the first time? In the "time of the end" God's worship has become as corrupt as it was in the first century, but like the majority of Jews, they stuck to their old ways, refusing to be cleansed of their false doctrines and human traditions by the ones sent to them. This is the situation we now see in the world..."few" are on the road to life and "many" are on the road to death. (Matt 7:13, 14) The "wheat" have been separated from the "weeds" and the time for judgment is nearer today than it ever was.

JW's need to let the teacher of the church (the Holy Spirit) teach them, and not some self proclaimed equals of Jesus!!

Since Jesus says he has "never" known the ones he rejects on judgment day, it pays to know where your own doctrines originated. These ones are so sure that they are Christians in good standing, yet Jesus calls them "workers of lawlessness".

Col 2:8-9 (ESVST) 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Is the Glory of God and the glory of angels one and the same? Is the glory of angels equal with the Glory of God? I say no. If it's not the same, and Jesus was just an angel, why did He say,

Jn 17:4-5 (ESVST) 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

If Jesus was just an angel, why wouldn't He say, "with the glory I had with the angels before the world existed"?

Jesus was produced by the action of the holy spirit, transferring the lifeforce of the pre-human Jesus to the womb of a Jewish maiden. Jesus was 100% human. He was not God incarnate.
Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the·oʹtes in basically the same way it does thei·oʹtes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” (P. 792)
The Syriac Pe****ta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as “divinity.” Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering the·oʹtes as referring to quality, not personality. (the censorship on this board is frustrating sometimes as the word in asterisks here is not a swear word)

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having “divinity,” or “divine nature,” does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such “fullness” does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being “seated at the right hand of God. (Col 3:1)

If Jesus is not God, but when we die we go to God's memory until the resurrection, why did Stephen call out.

Act 7:59-60 (ESVST) 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, " Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Isn't that blasphemy? Shouldn't Stephen have "called on the name of Jehovah"? Rom 10:13 (NWT) 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah* will be saved.”

No. Stephen was looking at the familiar face of his Lord in this heavenly vision....this was his master and teacher, so why not in the face of death call out to him? What was he asking for? What is the spirit that Stephen was entrusting to Jesus? Was it his soul? No...that is not the word he used. As Jesus is the one who is given authority to resurrect the dead, Stephen knew Jesus had the power to restore the spirit so that Stephen might live again. (1 Thess 4:13-17) No one is resurrected before Christ's return. He then calls his anointed to heaven in a "first resurrection". (Rev 20:6) After the restoration of pure worship and elimination of all the wicked, then Christ will resurrect the rest of the dead back to life on a cleansed earth. (John 5:28, 29; Rev 21:2-5) Jesus calls the dead from their graves because they are still in them...sleeping. (John 11:11-14)

What is interesting in this account is that in vs 55, 56, Stephen saw in heaven, God and Jesus at his right hand, but no one is on his left. Where is the holy spirit? It was in Stephen. Does that mean that it had left everyone else? It wasn't in heaven with the other parts of the trinity.

 

[rosends]

Any bible scholar knows that YAHWEH may not be the correct pronunciation. But also they say YAHWEH. Thats what I meant and you should understand what I say.

I understand what people say. I can't guess what they mean. And if a bible scholar, according to you, says something that he knows is wrong, then he isn't much of a scholar.

I did not assert facts about Hebrew. I as almost all here know, again, that Yahweh may not be the correct pronunciation. OMG, do you still seek an opportunity puff up my friend. Dont do that.

You didn't? So making a claim about a non-existent word (Hawah) is not about asserting facts about Hebrew. I see.

So you delve in a letter. Lol. There is no V nor is there a W in Hebrew. Hebrew has its own alphabet like any other language.

Actually, a word. Words are based in letters. Erroneous claims should be challenged and if the error lies in the use of a wrong word, letter or vowel point, it should be pointed out.

Still, YHWH exists.

In what sense does it exist? In a large-scale agreement to be wrong?

Go back to the original statement I made. The claim was that "Your Gods personal name is Yahweh." I insisted that there is no word "Yahweh." You then took that to have me say that there is no "YHWH" so I pointed out that, strictly speaking, no, there isn't. You have yet to show me that there is.

Jehovah in that case is never right then because J is not there.

That's true. So?

Jesus did not come to change the law. Paul contradicts Jesus. And Psalms does say that you do not have to preach in the new covenant.

Completely irrelevant. What was being discussed was the statement that "
Your Gods personal name is Yahweh.

But sis, contrary to what is averagely said, Hallelujah does not have much weight on Yahweh. Ya is not a short for Yahweh. Yahweh is largely accepted to come from hawah to mean he exists"
And that is flat out wrong on many levels. You don't like being corrected. That much is clear.

But dont use your knowledge this way to be arrogantly insolent my friend.

Then don't make arrogant and ignorant statements about things you don't know, like Hebrew, and I won't have to correct you.

But lets not let our knowledge blind us enough to deviate from the point and topic to shove a letter down someones throat.

so it is OK for you to make your unqualified and wrong statements, but I am not allowed to point out how completely wrong you are. Uh huh. Got it.

I am not gonna put my resume here, but lets not simply underestimate eachother for the sake of our own sarisfaction.

Don't worry. There is little chance I will underestimate you based on the claims you made.

 

[rosends]

No. I dont live in Cleveland. I live so far from you you will have to catch at least a ten hour flight, maybe much longer.

I asked you if you live in Israel because I have associates there. I know a coordinator called Akiva Alon (Now murder me if I got the spellings wrong). He organised the theological conference at King David, Tel Aviv a couple of years back. I thought you might know him if you live there.

And just look what you do. You agree that there is "YHWH" as they are English letters in the bible, and then say there is no "W" in hebrew.

Oh, I asked about Cleveland because I know a guy named Gil who went to school there so I wondered if you know him. Not at all related to a grand statement about an entire ethnic group, no siree.

 

[Deeje]

If one believes the teachings of the JW's, I can see what you are saying, but I don't believe what the WT and GB teach.

You are still saying that Jesus lied when He said "ALL" authority was given to Him in Heaven and on "EARTH". If "ALL" was given to Him, what is left?

You believe what you write because you have been deceived into believing Jesus came in 1914 and reigns as King. If He actually did come, He is not doing a very good job at ruling, is He?

If all authority was given to him in heaven and on earth, then in what sense do you see that authority being exercised? Jesus has full authority to direct his disciples in the greatest preaching campaign the world has ever seen. They will continue to declare that good news about his kingdom and also warn of his coming judgment. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing for the last hundred years and will continue right up to the end. (Matt 24:14; 37-39)

Then there are many JW's who are professing to be His followers, but are not

There are many more in Christendom who fit that description, sinning away happily and rely on "grace" to save them. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Grace is a very misunderstood thing in Christendom. God will not save willful sinners. We have to back up what we say with what we do.

I never said Jesus is exercising His authority over the earth right now, did I? Must you put words in my mouth? I said Jesus said, "all authority has been given Him, in Heaven and on earth". Jesus will not use His authority until He comes in the Kingdom.

Then we agree.....what is the problem? He delegates authority to his slave and instructs them to "feed" the rest of his household. Since Jesus appoints the slave, he must be in existence "feeding" Christ's disciples today...so who is he to you? We are not instructed to feed ourselves.

It actually says,

Mat 28:18-20 (ESVST) 18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Any idea what He meant by that?

Yes, we follow that command quite closely. "Teaching them to observe ALL" that Christ commanded means even the difficult bits, like going out into all nations to preach and to teach the truth to strangers. But it also means to go out into our local neighborhoods like Jesus sent out his disciples to find "worthy ones" and teach them too. (Matt 10:11-15) Preaching isn't just for overseas missionaries. It is placed as a command on all of Christ's disciples.It is an obligation that we owe to people out of Christian love.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, I asked about Cleveland because I know a guy named Gil who went to school there so I wondered if you know him. Not at all related to a grand statement about an entire ethnic group, no siree.

No I dont know a guy named Gil, it is stupid to ask me after I told you no I dont live in Cleveland. And you can keep your BS to yourself mate.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

"Any bible scholar does"? That's your argument? So if any bible scholar is wrong, you are Ok with that? Basically, what you have seen in English is simply wrong. I would prefer continuing this using Hebrew if we are going to talk about the bible. How's your Hebrew? I mean, that's what the bible was written in so if we want to look for a word there, we should read it in the source language.

So everyone knows it is wrong (which means that it isn't actually in the text...) but you like it anyway. Perfect. How exactly do your scholars come up with the most probable pronunciation? Jewish scholars don't have the pronunciation. That's like a thing with us.

Not only is it wrong (which always makes a difference) but the words you so poorly transliterated would never be read with "Yahweh" in it. If you "heard" it that way then it wasn't from anyone who knows Hebrew.

Even Shoshan is clear and well organized. Why rely on others? If you are not a Hebrew scholar then how can you assert facts about Hebrew which are flatly rejected by people who speak Hebrew?

OK, let me explain. Hebrew has no "W". The ancient pronunciation of the vav/waw was, according to those who study these things (and Yemenite Jews) somewhere between the v and w sounds. Of course, the nearest Hebrew word to "Hawah" does not have a vav in it. You see, there is NO Hebrew word like "Hawah." There is a word "Hayah" which means "was" and there is a word "hoveh" which means "present tense" (it is a grammatical term). The nearest word in the present tense indicating existence is "lehiyot", the infinitive form, meaning "to be." The laughable translation of ehyeh asher ehyeh "I am that I am" is so egregiously wrong because the verb form there is in the future tense. Do you still want to insist that the word "Hawah" exists and means what you say? Remember, you have already conceded that you aren't a Hebrew scholar.

I didn't know you were so married to being wrong and that you like to take local challenges and then apply them to entire groups. Do you live in Cleveland?

Bible scholars - Richard Bauckham, John Meyer, Bart Ehrman, Prof GP Loughlin.

They know that YHWH is four letters. No one knows how its pronounced. But this is how they use it in lectures. Yahweh. And if you say these scholars are stupid, say it to their faces. They are not arrogant as you, they acknowledge that they dont know how its pronounced, but they use it as Yahweh because they are not Jewish. They dont believe that using it is not accepted. Jews do. I respect that but you wanna insist on something like a child just to argue.
Of course Jews dont pronounce it.
You said YHWH exists but then you said there is no W in Hebrew.
V or W, the pronunciation is yours. Quoting it in English is anyones right.

 

[firedragon]

@rosends was merely correcting what seemed like a arbitrary mistake on your part, for using in the context, a word which does not appear in the Jewish Bible. Are you even a Christian? Why do you want to argue a position that could be incorrect? I have encountered this same issue, when I have told people that I adhere to YHWH, and they get all spooky and defensive, wanting to use their own Titles, so forth. It's just common courtesy, if some one doesn't want a Title being used in reference to their position, you oblige them.

I am Muslim. Whats that got to do with this? In that case whats are you in a thread on Jehovahs Witnesses. At the outself of the thread, you must fight against the name.
The Jewish Jehovah's Witness.
It is incorrect to pronounce it Yahweh. But in seminary and bible studies, Christians and others who are students or scholars or lecturers do pronounce it that way.
If you dont want me to use the word Yahweh because it offends you, I will not. I dont use it when discussing at a conference with Rabbis and Jews amongst others out of respect. But in a forum or discussions with JW's, Christians, Muslims, bible students and scholars I do.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Actually, I didn't say that you shouldn't use that Title. However, it's common courtesy to keep in mind the different Titles people want to have used when referring to their position.


The thread isn't about JW's, btw. They are being used as a analogy, for the subject/s/, of the thread.

But do you see that it says JEHOVAH?

The discussion I understand, but to argue about this is absurd. You lose the gist of the topic.

Peace.

 

[Desert Snake]

But do you see that it says JEHOVAH?

The discussion I understand, but to argue about this is absurd. You lose the gist of the topic.

Peace.

I don't have a problem with any of the Deific Titles in the thread, it's the context in which they're used, etc

 

[rosends]

No I dont know a guy named Gil, it is stupid to ask me after I told you no I dont live in Cleveland. And you can keep your BS to yourself mate.

Peace.

I have no BS. You are the one who feels that all Jews are arrogant. Have you told your associate Akiva that he is jumpy and arrogant?

 

[rosends]

Bible scholars - Richard Bauckham, John Meyer, Bart Ehrman, Prof GP Loughlin.

They know that YHWH is four letters. No one knows how its pronounced. But this is how they use it in lectures. Yahweh. And if you say these scholars are stupid, say it to their faces. They are not arrogant as you, they acknowledge that they dont know how its pronounced, but they use it as Yahweh because they are not Jewish. They dont believe that using it is not accepted. Jews do. I respect that but you wanna insist on something like a child just to argue.
Of course Jews dont pronounce it.
You said YHWH exists but then you said there is no W in Hebrew.
V or W, the pronunciation is yours. Quoting it in English is anyones right.

If you have their email addresses, I will tell them that they are wrong and perpetuating an error, which is not an academically appropriate way to make presentations. Is it arrogance to insist on what you have conceded is the truth about a situation? Does being not Jewish free them up to transmit what they know is not accurate? I never said "YHWH" exists. Please show me where I did. I actualy wrote, "The question of whether there is a YHWH is separate. But because the text was written in Hebrew, one could make the argument that there is no "YHWH" as they are English letters".
And you realize that when you are transliterating it into English, you aren't quoting it, right?