Statements must be taken in context. For instance, Jehovah was speaking to the Israelites at Isaiah 44:24. Jehovah was the administrator, Jesus was the one who carried out the Father's will.
I don't know what you mean by Jehovah speaking to the Israelites at Isa 44:24. Does that make a difference? Is Jehovah was alone then then He was alone.
There is nothing in the passage about anyone else being there and the passage denies that. There is nothing there about Jehovah being the administrator and Jesus the one who carried out the Father's will.
. Again, the word "God" must be taken in context. In discussion with someone else on these boards, about Saul and Samuel, the Bible says that the witch of Endor saw "gods" come up out of the earth. So if she saw "gods" come up out of the earth, how do you take this? Anyway, I'm not here to argue, but to reason from the scriptures.
Jesus said he has a God. Jesus was with the Father from the beginning.
So if you have to argue and insist, look at those scriptures and please stop avoiding them. At a certain point, I just wish a person well, which I may soon do.
I wish you well also.
I don't know where Jesus called Himself God. He called Himself the Son of God and the Jews knew what He meant and wanted to stone Him. Being the Son of God made Him equal to God,,,,,,,,,,in nature.
He did however give hints of Himself being God. For example, when He said that only God is good, that shows us, who know that Jesus was good, sinless, the impress of the being of God, the image of God who shines with the glory of God, that Jesus was saying there that He was God, even if the person He spoke to did not understand.
I don't know how to take the "gods" in the witch of Endor story. I have in the past seen it as angels coming with Samuel but there are various translations and some recognise that the plural of god in the passage could be a plural of majesty for whom the witch saw. Other points in the passage suggest this. Saul in the following verse seems to understand that there was only one who came up and asked what he (singular) looked like. So "gods" in the passage would just refer to probably a glorious spirit.
John 20:17 - Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
So Jesus has a God and Father. Again - the word 'god' must, must, must be taken in context.
If you look at John 20:17 you will see that Jesus did not say that He has not ascended to our God and Father, He made a distinction and probably that would be just how the Father was the God and Father of Jesus compared to how He was the God and Father of Mary.
Is there anything really wrong with the risen Jesus having a God? Jesus rose as a glorified man after all. Men have a God or gods. The Father became the God of Jesus when Jesus was in the womb of Mary, when He became a man. See Psalm 22:10
Also, you might want to look at John 1:1 again, since it speaks of the Word with God from the beginning. Many Bibles do erroneously translate that phrase to say that the Word was with God and was God, but even at that point, it was 2 Gods, not one or three. God WITH God. Not God superimposed and fitting in the body of another God. You can say what you will, but for the most part, if you have any questions, you might want to pray over them and argue with someone else. Bye for now....
The Word being with the God in the beginning means that the Word was in God. In the beginning (of the creation) nothing else existed by God and if space existed then God was everywhere, so with God had to mean in God. We also are in God as Acts 17:28. It is just that the Word was everywhere God was just as He is now. (as Ephesians 4:10 tells us).
(and that God is everywhere is pretty basic to the Bible---1Kings 8:27 behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built! ..)
John 1:1 is not all we have of the passage. I see John 1:1-3 as incorporating more of the passage. John 1:3 tells us that without the Word not one thing came into existence. It does not say "other thing" and if you think it does, you are reading into it what is not there. So Jesus is God as much as the God He was with is God imo. But of course there is but one God and so the 2 must be one, and when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" the "one" is neuter gender meaning He was saying "I and the Father are one thing". What is that one thing? Again the Jews might have guess, Jesus said that God is His Father (one nature--equal with God) and now He was saying that He and the Father are one thing. The Jews after all did pick up stones to throw at Him. They would not have done this is they thought He might be saying that He and the Father agree about stuff.
A translation of "and the Word was a god" might be grammatically OK but to get that you need to end up with 2 Gods, a big one and a little one in the beginning before the creation began,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or you need to ignore John 1:3 or think in your head that it must mean "other things" because your doctrine tells you that Jesus was created.
But really when it comes to John 1:1 I think the second use of "God" is a descriptive use and is saying the same as other passage which tell us that Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col 1) and the impress of God's being (Heb 1) and shines with the glory of God,,,,,,,,,,a glory that Jehovah gives to no other.
And don't forget that the witch called up god or gods, again depending on translation.So the word 'god' can be used in various contexts. If you don't agree or understand that, I suggest you pray and ask God for guidance in the name of Jesus. Have a nice day.
Again a JW who avoids answering all the scriptures I gave. Sigh.
Have a nice day.
