Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Brian2]

I don't know how long they were there before they ate from the tree God told them not to eat from. I do know that given enough time, if a plant or animal dies of its own accord, it goes back to the ground, in other words, the body disintegrates and dissolves, and goes back to the ground (or where it came from--the ground).
I also know that if a fruit stays long enough on a tree, it should fall to the ground and dissolve. So they could possibly have seen the difference between something being edible (in the case of fruit) and what was rotten fruit, not on the vine.

So are you saying the body goes out of existence?

 

[YoursTrue]

So are you saying the body goes out of existence?

Are you? And here's what I'm saying, after reading so much of these posts...only God's kingdom can solve mankind's problems.

 

[Brian2]

As far as hearing from me, unfortunately I don't have the time to read everything. Since I don't understand the term "God by nature." Before I get onto other topics you bring up, whatever does "God by nature" mean? (Either one is God or he isn't God.)

This is something that is a forced stance of trinitarians due to the objection given against Jesus being God. Or iows we would say Jesus is God without hesitation but we know that those against that would say how could that be if Jesus does not know what the Father knows and is given all power by God and is subordinate to the Father etc. These things are explained by the fact that Jesus is the Son and the Father is His Father, so there is a father/son relationship. They are also explained by the fact that Jesus became a man.
Jesus is God by nature means that Jesus is as much God as His Father is.
I think you pretend to not know what it means. My son has the same human nature that I do. He is human. You know that but do not want to know what Jesus has the same nature as His Father.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is something that is a forced stance of trinitarians due to the objection given against Jesus being God. Or iows we would say Jesus is God without hesitation but we know that those against that would say how could that be if Jesus does not know what the Father knows and is given all power by God and is subordinate to the Father etc. These things are explained by the fact that Jesus is the Son and the Father is His Father, so there is a father/son relationship. They are also explained by the fact that Jesus became a man.
Jesus is God by nature means that Jesus is as much God as His Father is.
I think you pretend to not know what it means. My son has the same human nature that I do. He is human. You know that but do not want to know what Jesus has the same nature as His Father.

Your son is a human. An expression can be used which is human nature. What does that mean? One definition is: the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans. Now that would be confined to humans, not perhaps dogs or cats or apes, would you say that's right? Or do they share characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is something that is a forced stance of trinitarians due to the objection given against Jesus being God. Or iows we would say Jesus is God without hesitation but we know that those against that would say how could that be if Jesus does not know what the Father knows and is given all power by God and is subordinate to the Father etc. These things are explained by the fact that Jesus is the Son and the Father is His Father, so there is a father/son relationship. They are also explained by the fact that Jesus became a man.
Jesus is God by nature means that Jesus is as much God as His Father is.
I think you pretend to not know what it means. My son has the same human nature that I do. He is human. You know that but do not want to know what Jesus has the same nature as His Father.

Either a person is God or he is not. Either God is human or he is not. Last but not least, either a human is in the ape family or he is not. Are humans animals stemming from apes?

 

[Brian2]

Your son is a human. An expression can be used which is human nature. What does that mean? One definition is: the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans. Now that would be confined to humans, not perhaps dogs or cats or apes, would you say that's right? Or do they share characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind?

Animals seem to share some traits we humans have but only humans are human.

 

[Brian2]

Either a person is God or he is not. Either God is human or he is not. Last but not least, either a human is in the ape family or he is not. Are humans animals stemming from apes?

If God formed the body of Adam through evolution then humans and apes are related physically. When Adam's body was formed God breathed spirit into him for Adam to be a living human created in God's image.
From eternity God has not been human, but that does not mean that God cannot become a human. Do you think God cannot become a human if He wants to?
If God could do that then God's Son who shared God's nature and so was equal to His Father, could do that and did do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Animals seem to share some traits we humans have but only humans are human.

Are humans animals? I think most people think animals are not humans, but many, MANY think that humans are animals evolved from "Great Apes." So the question remains in this context -- do you believe that humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes? Because, if they did, then they share more than characteristics of animals (apes, in this case) but are genetically very similar. (Thus they share many characteristics.)

 

[YoursTrue]

If God formed the body of Adam through evolution then humans and apes are related physically. When Adam's body was formed God breathed spirit into him for Adam to be a living human created in God's image.
From eternity God has not been human, but that does not mean that God cannot become a human. Do you think God cannot become a human if He wants to?
If God could do that then God's Son who shared God's nature and so was equal to His Father, could do that and did do that.

Let me see if I understand your answer. You are claiming that Jesus had the nature of God as a human, therefore is God (fully) . You say that humans descend from humans, therefore like father like son (human). (Does God descend from God?) Yes, a human son is fully human. Here's the rub, though. He comes from, descends from, his father. Is he equal to his father? A son usually does not leave his property in a will to his father. He is born of (or from) the father.

 

[Brian2]

Are you? And here's what I'm saying, after reading so much of these posts...only God's kingdom can solve mankind's problems.

We agree that on this point even though we disagree that Jesus started that Kingdom on earth 2000 years ago and has been collecting citizens ever since.

 

[YoursTrue]

Animals seem to share some traits we humans have but only humans are human.

So then, did God create Adam from the ground after the animals were formed? Or did humans evolve from a common ancestor of apes, "sharing animal traits"? This is important if you're going by the human nature and God nature idea.

 

[Brian2]

Are humans animals? I think most people think animals are not humans, but many, MANY think that humans are animals evolved from "Great Apes." So the question remains in this context -- do you believe that humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes? Because, if they did, then they share more than characteristics of animals (apes, in this case) but are genetically very similar. (Thus they share many characteristics.)

I think it is possible to understand the Genesis account and see it as pointing to evolution as the way God formed the body of Adam. I also see that it is possible that God formed Adam to resemble apes in many ways and genetically. I do not know which is true. Do you? How do you know?

 

[YoursTrue]

We agree that on this point even though we disagree that Jesus started that Kingdom on earth 2000 years ago and has been collecting citizens ever since.

(We shall see...right now we're on the subject of God-man as if fully in both natures in one man.) I did mention it, though, because all the arguing over who's who is not the deciding factor in salvation. So back we go to what's a god and what's a man and if God can be fully man, staying God-man in the flesh forever while the other two are not godmen in human flesh.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it is possible to understand the Genesis account and see it as pointing to evolution as the way God formed the body of Adam. I also see that it is possible that God formed Adam to resemble apes in many ways and genetically. I do not know which is true. Do you? How do you know?

Because the Bible says that God made Adam from the ground. Not as descending from a common ancestor of apes. If a person believes the Bible regarding the origin of man, he would not believe that Adam (and Eve) descended from some unknown common ancestor of the Great Apes. He would also not believe that Adam is an animal. Although animals have fabulous characteristics. And anything beyond that, such as "fully man" and "fully God" would be really like "fully man descended from apes" and "fully God" descending from God. In the same body of ape-like descent. Anyway, it's been a nice discussion, thank you for your politeness.

 

[Brian2]

Let me see if I understand your answer. You are claiming that Jesus had the nature of God as a human, therefore is God (fully) . You say that humans descend from humans, therefore like father like son (human). (Does God descend from God?)

My son got his life from me and Jesus got his life from His Father and has had that life from eternity. When it comes to God I feel that descend is not the appropriate word since that indicates a time component, whereas God (and His Son) are the I AM. An actual infinite number of 24 hour days into the past is non sensical imo as it means we could not be here yet. Time is part of God's creation. Jesus is the Father of Eternity.

Yes, a human son is fully human. Here's the rub, though. He comes from, descends from, his father. Is he equal to his father? A son usually does not leave his property in a will to his father. He is born of (or from) the father.

The Son owns all things that belong to His Father and in a human sense is the heir of all things because the Father and the Son are not confused about which one is the Father and which one is the Son.
The Son has always been YAHWEH (as can be seen in OT quotes about YAHWEH being applied to Jesus in the NT) but in a human sense the Son inherits the name which is above all names. The Son owns the nations but in a human sense He inherits the nations.
Psalm 82:8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
The Son shared glory with His Father from eternity but in a human sense the Son had to die and rise and go back to His Father to share that glory.

 

[Brian2]

(We shall see...right now we're on the subject of God-man as if fully in both natures in one man.) I did mention it, though, because all the arguing over who's who is not the deciding factor in salvation. So back we go to what's a god and what's a man and if God can be fully man, staying God-man in the flesh forever while the other two are not godmen in human flesh.

True the other 2 are not godmen in human flesh but the other 2 are in the body of Jesus, sharing that with Him, just as Jesus is a man but is so much more than a man and so when He rose from the dead His presence is wherever the Father and the Holy Spirit are. He dwells in a believer with His Father through the Holy Spirit.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Ephesians 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.

 

[Brian2]

Because the Bible says that God made Adam from the ground. Not as descending from a common ancestor of apes. If a person believes the Bible regarding the origin of man, he would not believe that Adam (and Eve) descended from some unknown common ancestor of the Great Apes. He would also not believe that Adam is an animal. Although animals have fabulous characteristics. And anything beyond that, such as "fully man" and "fully God" would be really like "fully man descended from apes" and "fully God" descending from God. In the same body of ape-like descent. Anyway, it's been a nice discussion, thank you for your politeness.

When we look at Genesis 2 we don't find another creation story we find what happened when God decided to make man. When we compare when that was with the days of Gen 1 we see that it was before there were plants in the ground. Maybe it was at the start of day 3 or something. That would certainly fit with the ideas espoused in evolution. It was only after man was fully made physically that God created him in His image by breathing His life into him.
Interesting way of looking at it.
Certainly the whole of the creation story can be seen to fit with what science is telling us if we realise that the Genesis account is telling us what God did at the start, and that everything is in embryo form then.
It could be said that it is only when things became firmly established as to what they were that it could be said that they had a kind and reproduced according to that kind.
As I said, God may well have just come down and formed man from the dust on the spot, but maybe not.
(interestingly is God formed man from the dust of the ground I guess that would have had to have been Jesus doing it.)
Catch you around.

 

[YoursTrue]

When we look at Genesis 2 we don't find another creation story we find what happened when God decided to make man. When we compare when that was with the days of Gen 1 we see that it was before there were plants in the ground. Maybe it was at the start of day 3 or something. That would certainly fit with the ideas espoused in evolution. It was only after man was fully made physically that God created him in His image by breathing His life into him.
Interesting way of looking at it.
Certainly the whole of the creation story can be seen to fit with what science is telling us if we realise that the Genesis account is telling us what God did at the start, and that everything is in embryo form then.
It could be said that it is only when things became firmly established as to what they were that it could be said that they had a kind and reproduced according to that kind.
As I said, God may well have just come down and formed man from the dust on the spot, but maybe not.
(interestingly is God formed man from the dust of the ground I guess that would have had to have been Jesus doing it.)
Catch you around.

I checked genesis 1 and 2 and see that God created light and darkness and animals before man. But that's what I see, maybe you see something different. That's #1. Nothing about Adam being an offshoot or evolving from an unknown common ancestor in the ape family.
#2 is that Jesus referred to his father in heaven as his God. So Jesus has "a" God. Now I know this may encompass a lot, but who said this: "Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God." Revelation 3:2.
I have enjoyed our conversation by the way. Thanks for your responses.

 

[Brian2]

I checked genesis 1 and 2 and see that God created light and darkness and animals before man. But that's what I see, maybe you see something different. That's #1. Nothing about Adam being an offshoot or evolving from an unknown common ancestor in the ape family.
#2 is that Jesus referred to his father in heaven as his God. So Jesus has "a" God. Now I know this may encompass a lot, but who said this: "Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God." Revelation 3:2.
I have enjoyed our conversation by the way. Thanks for your responses.

I did have a more, shall we say, fundamentalist understanding of Genesis at one point then on the forums and talking with atheists my views have changed and I see that genesis can be understood with evolution in mind. It took time for that understanding to,,,,,,,,evolve. Atheist still don't seem to be able to see what I am talking about, but many of them have been brought up with a fundamentalist understanding of Genesis and reading translations that tend to hide things. (an idea that JWs are familiar with I'm sure)
I see that all the universe was created at Gen 1:1 and the sun and stars etc were not created on day 4 but were just made to appear then, instead of just light from them coming through the thick cloud cover that covered the ocean and kept the earth in darkness for much of day one. (see Job 38:9)
Science also has ideas of ocean and cloud cover in the first part of earth's history.
I see most of the order of creation and making (bringing about) of the life forms as agreeing with science and it's findings (even if microbes are not mentioned)
I see the formation of the atmosphere and weather systems and great geological upheavals to form the mountains and valleys as agreeing with science.
I see chapter 2 as beginning on maybe on day 2 or 3 of Gen 1. (I think I covered that in the last post)
These things and others do show that science has been showing that the Bible is correct, without realising it.
The Genesis account seems to have been written to fit ideas from the last few thousand years of scientific knowledge and it is still fitting science.
Of course I cannot deny that science could be wrong about 14 billion years etc but it seems right to me.
And of course I still say that man was a special creation of God on day 6 but that was when man was made in God's image by the breathing of spirit from God into the physical form.
Genesis is not big on details however, it gives just enough.
It does not need to explicitly describe evolution and it does not, but it also does not explicitly describe God poofing all life forms into existence. It even says, let the earth bring forth animals etc
I could be wrong in all of this but to me Genesis looks like a historical narrative as much as anything else.
Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did have a more, shall we say, fundamentalist understanding of Genesis at one point then on the forums and talking with atheists my views have changed and I see that genesis can be understood with evolution in mind. It took time for that understanding to,,,,,,,,evolve. Atheist still don't seem to be able to see what I am talking about, but many of them have been brought up with a fundamentalist understanding of Genesis and reading translations that tend to hide things. (an idea that JWs are familiar with I'm sure)
I see that all the universe was created at Gen 1:1 and the sun and stars etc were not created on day 4 but were just made to appear then, instead of just light from them coming through the thick cloud cover that covered the ocean and kept the earth in darkness for much of day one. (see Job 38:9)
Science also has ideas of ocean and cloud cover in the first part of earth's history.
I see most of the order of creation and making (bringing about) of the life forms as agreeing with science and it's findings (even if microbes are not mentioned)
I see the formation of the atmosphere and weather systems and great geological upheavals to form the mountains and valleys as agreeing with science.
I see chapter 2 as beginning on maybe on day 2 or 3 of Gen 1. (I think I covered that in the last post)
These things and others do show that science has been showing that the Bible is correct, without realising it.
The Genesis account seems to have been written to fit ideas from the last few thousand years of scientific knowledge and it is still fitting science.
Of course I cannot deny that science could be wrong about 14 billion years etc but it seems right to me.
And of course I still say that man was a special creation of God on day 6 but that was when man was made in God's image by the breathing of spirit from God into the physical form.
Genesis is not big on details however, it gives just enough.
It does not need to explicitly describe evolution and it does not, but it also does not explicitly describe God poofing all life forms into existence. It even says, let the earth bring forth animals etc
I could be wrong in all of this but to me Genesis looks like a historical narrative as much as anything else.
Bye for now.

Here's the thing -- Jesus spoke of God creating the first man and woman. Not as if they came from ape-like creatures. Regardless of what anyone 'thinks,' the Bible says God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So two things here, whether you want to see them or not. One is that God was speaking to someone. "Let US..." Another is that He said, "Let us MAKE mankind in our image, in our likeness," and so forth. Not let us create. There's a difference. All to be considered. Unless, of course, you don't believe it. It is not reasonable to imagine that there were three godpersons without any of them having a beginning, and being equal. Jesus said he has a God. Perhaps you don't believe that either? Just wondering...
So yes -- bye for now, and have a good night. Oh, and by the way, since God is a Creator, what makes you think He did not create his son? Perhaps you think a human has a son alive within himself before he begets another "human" through his wife? As I said, it has been an interesting discussion, to say the least.
Yes, the spirit of God (OF GOD -- not God the spirit) is quite another subject, although interesting and fabulous in itself. We're still on whether Jesus has a "God." And is a God. And whether the Father is greater than he is. Of course, he said so, and I do believe Jesus on this. G'night.