It's easy to see straws or beams or splinters in other people's eyes, and yet fail to notice the trunks and logs and things in our own eyes. We all do it. but anyway, about those emails. there are points that are never really truly honestly addressed. that there are "cases"; and then there are "REAL cases" that can be put forth that have merit. superman or godzilla or David Koresh in Waco thinking that He's God's Lamb and mankind's Savior have no real merit, and are not strong cases. in the spirit of fairness and honesty, I conceded that a "case" (though not a bullet-proof or totally air-tight case) can be made for a co-eternal trinity concept, literal conscious "hell-fire", etc, but NOT for things like Mary was immaculately conceived or that it's ok to bow and pray and kiss statues and icons in worshipful manner. (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). or the Mormon idea that God the Father is Flesh and Bones. those things have NO strong "case". but if you're honest, it must be admitted that a good "case" can be made for the Semi-Arian Paternal Supremacy position also. and so forth. And to re-iterate concerning things you said and repeated. The Father Almighty wants me to worship Jesus. Jehovah in Heaven surely wants that. on that we agree. God the Father wants me to worship our Lord and His Son the way His Word outlines. And after the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, with high "proskyneo," like the angels are to do. (Hebrews 1:6) and with high praise and honor and devotion. (Revelation 5) but do I see the "alone" type of "latriea" being told to me, in the Bible, to go to Christ? it's not clearly there. and as I said, I can only go by what I see and what I know and by what is clearly revealed in Scripture. "proskyneo" and "latriea" are NOT the exact same, is what fairly compelling internal Biblical and Linguistical evidence indicates, that they're really different in level and degree, then there's not much further I can say or do. (if, Biblically and Linguistically speaking, the Greek "proskyneo" are "latreia" are exactly the same thing, then why would the Holy Spirit choose to use different words in the first place?)
and why wouldn't the Spirit make it super-abundantly without-even-a-smidgen-of-a-doubt clear that "latreia" goes expressly unambiguously to God's Son? and why did the Holy Spirit and Christ Jesus put the word "alone" in the "latriea" part of the statement in Luke 4? why does proskyneo go to both Father and Son in the "New Testament" from all creation properly, yet "latriea" (the "alone" latriea of Luke 4) only clearly irrefutably goes only to God the Father properly in Scripture? (remember the number of Verses that I put in bold type showing that.) the distinctions are NOT "imagined". I did not imagine the word "alone" in Luke 4, with regard to "latreia", but never in regard to "proskyneo" in the "New Testament." I did not "imagine" the fact that "latriea" never goes to Christ in the "New Testament." the strict "alone" type sacred service. I did not make those things up. check it out carefully. and it's not a Unitarian "invention" or "imagination" or concoction. and really, what would be the point even??
Also, it's NOT "nit-picking" about the points about being truly separated and sanctified like God's Word directs. Don't confuse me with the Holy Spirit, people. I didn't say these things; God's inspired Word did. and not just an "interpretation" either. The general principles are there. "For OUR INSTRUCTION". (Romans 15:4) But a true and Scriptural and clear understanding of pointed and cutting Verses. Because if that's the case, then God Himself is a nit-picker. I did not say to "not mix the true with the false," that was the Word and Spirit of God that said that. AND THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS THERE. that apostate Protestants and "Christendom" in general violate left and right. paganism and corruption and worldliness. mixing with the world's vain customs, politics, and vanity, and "hot air". (Jeremiah 10). Why would God put those things in the Bible, if it's only to be relegated to that specific time, in Israel or Bablyon exclusively? "All things were written AFORETIME, FOR OUR INSTRUCTION." (Romans 15:4) I did not say "touch not the unclean thing" and also "what agreement does Christ have with Belial" or "decorating trees is a 'vain custom' of the nations, and 'hot air', and is idolatry" and "decking it with silver and gold" is what heathen idol-woshippers did(Jeremiah 10:4) and as a general applicable principle "learn NOT the way of the pagan nations and peoples" like Egyptian Evergreens that people used to worship and decorate in times past (how was your Christmas by the way?
Did Christ in Heaven approve of all that pagan crap? all that junk dumped on His supposed "birthday" on the Feast of Saturnalia, the Babylonian and Egyptian Sun-God, and winter solsctice. mixed with the Bible. yikes. picking at "nits" is the way apostate Christendom (all corrupt branches) looks at these things. not thinking that God cares. not very careful Bible students I see. not really following "all Scripture" (2 Timothy 3:16) and not truly pure in Christian conduct and un-tainted living and practice. and also mingling and involved in worldly corrupt elections and nationalism and politics and insane wars. and just general impurity. yet making a silly fuss over things like "trinity" and whatever else.
calling Jesus "God and Lord" yet not really doing what He commands, nor what His God and Father says to do and not do. yeah, trifles, sure. "nitish" stuff. I'm sure those who perished in the Flood thought they were ok with the God of Enoch too. thinking that preaching and building and Ark and being so separate from the rest of the world was not all that necessary. it's scary. again, let me repeat: I'll worship Jesus the way the Bible says I should, AND NOT BEYOND THAT. again, also what I said before about just how old Christ is: BEGINNING (ARKHIE) of God's creation. not "beginnER" but "beginnING", and not "ruler" (a different Greek word) of God's creation" according to Revelation 3:14, but "the first" of it (Proverbs 8:22-36; Collossians 1:15-18, and compare John 2:11 for the word "arkhie" or "beginnig" of Christ's miracles. in other words, THE FIRST miracle, not separate from the group of miracles. so Christ is THE FIRST of God's Productions, before ages. therefore not the same age as His Father.
No true son is as old as his father. in whatever dimension or realm. if you want to give "latriea" to Jesus (thinking that "latriea" and "proskyneo" are no different) then it's your choice. I'll instead stick carefully with the Bible's prescription of it though. and I'll understand that no word or variety of words are in the Bible for no reason. if distinctions and differentiations are made and shown when they are read, then I will make a careful note of it, and not stubbornly refuse to see it nor deny it. and if the Father is greater than the Son, as the Son Himself confessed (John 14:28; 20:17; Revelation 3:12), then why shouldn't the Father receive "greater" worship? "Latriea," that only clearly goes to the Father in the Bible, and has the word "alone" in front of it???? and also, if you want to think that Christ is a make-believe Son of God, and not a True Genuine Son, and not the REAL "Firstborn" Son of God, in the literal and truest sense, then knock yourself out. But I tried to put forth sound reason and doctrine.
And I also told you that if the Bible clearly showed that Christ had no beginning, and was just a figurative metaphorical "Son", and was literally and clearly equal to the Father (in those precise and clear words) then I would believe and proclaim it. but since those things are NOT expressly and clearly and undeniably shown in Scripture, I will refrain from doing or saying stuff like that. I'll "NOT go beyond what is clearly set down in Scripture" (1 Corinthians 4:6) in a pretense and notion and distorted view that I'm honoring Christ, and claiming that I am "Christ's own", while at the same time disobeying His Bible and His Word and His Will, left and right, upside down, inside out, and think that it's just "nits". disobeying His Bible in various important ways, and mixing demonism with Christianity, and thinking it's "trifles" or no big deal, Nah, I won't do that, sir. I'll take seriously what God takes seriously. Without watering those things down, or ignoring them. or pooh-poohing the principles. (it's not easy to be a truly separated and sanctified and true and pure and untainted Christian, and "no part of the world" and all its pagan and political corruption.) (And if you still continue to think that those things are so minor and are "nits", and that God doesn't really care about them, then please try to read these following verses; and, people, it's the Bible, so there should be no objection from you, to reading the Bible, and taking a few minutes, and examining verses of Scripture. Since you say that you love the Bible. For real. And I DID READ the few verses that you mentioned in your emails. Romans and etc. These verses here are interesting (in any version of the Bible) : 2 Corinthians 6:15-18; Revelation 21:27; 18:2,4; 9:20,21; Jeremiah 10:2-5; Luke 13:24; Psalm 106:39; Isaiah 52:11; Ezekiel 22:3; Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20,21; Luke 6:46; etc.) Gabe
on a co-equal trinity and pagan holidays
by sweetscholar 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
sweetscholar
-
RU Saved
Sweetscholar,
What do you think of the verse Isaiah 44:24, which states, "I, the L ORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone." How do you reconcile this with the Watchtower teaching that Jehovah first created Christ and then Christ created everything else?
Peace Bro
-
sweetscholar
it's a question and point that I've come across before a number of times already. it's not a new point or discovery. and if you're asking me this in at least a semi-sincere way, and in an honest manner, then I welcome the question. civil discussion about it is fine and even necessary. but are you just gonna be closed-minded and dismissive with everything I write and say here? hopefully not. if you can humbly keep your mind open just a crack, it might suit you well. I don't say that condescendingly either, but honestly. we all could and should take that advice, in general. I say that a case CAN be made for a co-equal trinity, in Scripture. Just not an air-tight or totally bullet-proof case. I concede some seeming points here and there. but where's the weight of evidence? The Bible was written in such a way so as to test men's hearts. let's discuss this matter now. here we go. let me first say this: a text without a context is a pre-text. (just like trinitarians have lifted "I and My Father are one" out its proper and understandable adn reasonable context in John 10 concerning one in pastoral or shepherding work, being "one" with the Father in holy mission and saving purpose, and NOT in some mystical Nicean "substance" thing, of Athanasian hallucinations.)
now, what was the overall situation and context and point in Isaiah? People of an Athanasian or Trinitarian bent have constantly used Isaiah 44:24 to TRY to prove that Jesus is the Supreme Creator, just like His Father is, or that they must be co-equal or con-substantial or co-eternal, or the same God, because Scripture states that God made all things by Himself. So the pre-existent Christ must have been "God" exactly and equally like God the Father is. That therefore Jesus would have to be part of the Godhead since Paul and John said that all things were created through Jesus Christ. (John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16) RUSaved, as I said before, regarding this, because, frankly, you guys always do it, DO NOT TAKE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF THEIR PROPER AND NECESSARY CONTEXT. What was the context of Isaiah 44:24 ??? What was the setting?? What do the surrounding Verses indicate? RUSaved, stop using closed-system logic. Let's examine things openly and honestly and fairly. Let's take it from the NIV. (Read this through)
"This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of the FALSE PROPHETS and makes fools of DIVINERS, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,' of the towsn of Judah, 'They shall be built,' and of their ruins, 'I will restore them,' who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry and I will dry up your streams,' who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'"--Isaiah 44:24-28.
Jehovah is the Creator of heaven and earth. He is powerful enough to take action against Babylon, and in favor of His forgiven people. (With me so far?) We see that Yehowah Elohim feels absolutely certain about future events and He brings the test to a climax and puts Himself to the severest test of whether He is the one true God compared with gods of the pagan nations. (A very crucial and important point there.) He names, almost 200 years in advance, the very man whom He will raise up to free His people from Babylon.
The fortunetellers, the diviners, the astrologers, the political forecasters who made unfavorable predictions against Yehowah's people, particularly the forecasters of Babylon--all of these Jehovah has proved to be "frustrated fools", having things backwards. At the same time He has proved His own servants, His messengers, His witnesses like Isaiah and Jeremiah, to be true by fulfilling the inspired counsel that He gave through these prophets.
So, sir, when it says that God stretched out the heavens and earth by Himself, it's in the context of refuting pagan gods and idols, that the false gods of the nations (hostile nations) had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's exposing false ideas and concepts of the worldly nations. It's the idiomitic Hebraic expressions, and in context, that need to be understood. But this does not ipso fact of necessity mean that a true one, a mighty Firstborn Son of God, can't be a Master Worker and Craftsman at the Father's side while "the foundations of the earth being marked out." (Read Proverbs 8:22-36; John 3:36; 1 Cor. 1:24.) Trinitarians ALWAYS take Isaiah 44:24 out of historical, linguistical, religious, Biblical, grammatical, and logical context. To attempt to support an extreme doctrine.
And also, you never really addressed Revelation 3:14, with the Greek "arkhie" meaning "beginning" (NOT beginnER) of God's creation. a Greek term which does NOT mean "ruler" or "source". "arkHON" means "ruler" OF something in the Greek "New Testament", and "arkHEGOS" means "Source" or "Author" OF something in the Greek Scriptures. every single time that the word "arkhie" is used by all writers of the inspired New Testament, where "OF" is next to it, in a genetive sense, it always always means "BEGINNING" or "first in a group" of something. how boot dat?
And back to creation. it's this simple. God the Father is the Ultimate Source of creation. He "CREATED" (one Hebrew word), and Christ the Master Worker 'MADE" all things, a different Hebrew and Greek work. The Father Jehovah can be spoken as both creating and making, but the Son Jesus only "made". Why, because the Father supplied the materials, and the Son worked the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God. Thence, "all things were made through Him, and not one thing that was made was made without Him" and so on. But to TRUE pure unadulterated NON-Athanasian "Christians" of the Bible, there is ONE GOD, the Father, OUT OF (EX) whom all things are,... and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH (DIA) whom all things are." Paul did not say: "to us there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Why? that would have been a perfect place for him to say and define and make clear who the True God of Christianity is, IF that God is really a co-equal co-eternal trinity. Paul didn't write: "to us there is one God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." He didn't phrase it like that. read it carefully. he put only the Father in the "one God" classification. we can get into at another time how Christ is "Lord" in a way (Messianically) that is different than how the Father is "Lord". And that the Father is "God" in a way different (in a Supreme Absolute sense) than how Christ is. And Paul did not say "to us there is one God, the Father and Christ Jesus OUT OF whom all things are." In other words "ex" is never used of the Son. Even though "dia" as well as "ex" is used of the Father, the crucial point is that the Greek "ex" (for "from" or "out of") is never ever ever used of Christ in the inspired "New Testament." why? if Christ is just as much the Creator as the Father is? the answer is that Christ is NOT the ultimate Creator of the universe, but rather its "Maker". Because God the Father both "creates" and "makes" but the Son only "makes" in the sense of working materials that already there provided by God the Father, the Eternal Unbegotten Supreme God, "whose Name alone is Jehovah." Amen. anymore questions? -
sweetscholar
it's a question and point that I've come across before a number of times already. it's not a new point or discovery. and if you're asking me this in at least a semi-sincere way, and in an honest manner, then I welcome the question. civil discussion about it is fine and even necessary. but are you just gonna be closed-minded and dismissive with everything I write and say here? hopefully not. if you can humbly keep your mind open just a crack, it might suit you well. I don't say that condescendingly either, but honestly. we all could and should take that advice, in general. I say that a case CAN be made for a co-equal trinity, in Scripture. Just not an air-tight or totally bullet-proof case. I concede some seeming points here and there. but where's the weight of evidence? The Bible was written in such a way so as to test men's hearts. let's discuss this matter now. here we go. let me first say this: a text without a context is a pre-text. (just like trinitarians have lifted "I and My Father are one" out its proper and understandable and reasonable context in John 10 concerning one in pastoral or shepherding work, being "one" with the Father in holy mission and saving purpose, and NOT in some mystical Nicean "substance" thing, of Athanasian hallucinations.)
now, what was the overall situation and context and point in Isaiah? People of an Athanasian or Trinitarian bent have constantly used Isaiah 44:24 to TRY to prove that Jesus is the Supreme Creator, just like His Father is, or that they must be co-equal or con-substantial or co-eternal, or the same God, because Scripture states that God made all things by Himself. So the pre-existent Christ must have been "God" exactly and equally like God the Father is. That therefore Jesus would have to be part of the Godhead since Paul and John said that all things were created through Jesus Christ. (John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16) RUSaved, as I said before, regarding this, because, frankly, you guys always do it, DO NOT TAKE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF THEIR PROPER AND NECESSARY CONTEXT. What was the context of Isaiah 44:24 ??? What was the setting?? What do the surrounding Verses indicate? RUSaved, stop using closed-system logic. Let's examine things openly and honestly and fairly. Let's take it from the NIV. (Read this through)
"This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of the FALSE PROPHETS and makes fools of DIVINERS, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,' of the towns of Judah, 'They shall be built,' and of their ruins, 'I will restore them,' who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry and I will dry up your streams,' who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'"--Isaiah 44:24-28.
Jehovah is the Creator of heaven and earth. He is powerful enough to take action against Babylon, and in favor of His forgiven people. (With me so far?) We see that Yehowah Elohim feels absolutely certain about future events and He brings the test to a climax and puts Himself to the severest test of whether He is the one true God compared with gods of the pagan nations. (A very crucial and important point there.) He names, almost 200 years in advance, the very man whom He will raise up to free His people from Babylon.
The fortunetellers, the diviners, the astrologers, the political forecasters who made unfavorable predictions against Yehowah's people, particularly the forecasters of Babylon--all of these Jehovah has proved to be "frustrated fools", having things backwards. At the same time He has proved His own servants, His messengers, His witnesses like Isaiah and Jeremiah, to be true by fulfilling the inspired counsel that He gave through these prophets.
So, sir, when it says that God stretched out the heavens and earth by Himself, it's in the context of refuting pagan gods and idols, that the false gods of the nations (hostile nations) had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's exposing false ideas and concepts of the worldly nations. It's the idiomitic Hebraic expressions, and in context, that need to be understood. But this does not ipso fact of necessity mean that a true one, a mighty Firstborn Son of God, can't be a Master Worker and Craftsman at the Father's side while "the foundations of the earth were being marked out." (Read Proverbs 8:22-36; John 3:36; 1 Cor. 1:24.) Trinitarians ALWAYS take Isaiah 44:24 out of its historical, linguistical, religious, Biblical, grammatical, and logical context. To attempt to support an extreme doctrine.
And also, you never really addressed Revelation 3:14, with the Greek "arkhie" meaning "beginning" (NOT beginnER) of God's creation. a Greek term which does NOT mean "ruler" or "source". "arkHON" means "ruler" OF something in the Greek "New Testament", and "arkHEGOS" means "Source" or "Author" OF something in the Greek Scriptures. every single time that the word "arkhie" is used by all writers of the inspired New Testament, where "OF" is next to it, in a genetive sense, it always always means "BEGINNING" or "first in a group" of something. how boot dat?
And now back to the ultimate creation question. it's this simple. God the Father is the Ultimate Source of creation. He "CREATED" (one Hebrew word), and Christ the Master Worker "MADE" all things, a different Hebrew and Greek work. The Father Jehovah can be spoken as both creating and making, but the Son Jesus only "made". Why? because the Father supplied the materials, and the Son worked the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God. Thence, "all things were made through Him, and not one thing that was made was made without Him" and so on. But to TRUE pure unadulterated NON-Athanasian "Christians" of the Bible, there is ONE GOD, the Father, OUT OF (EX) whom all things are,... and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH (DIA) whom all things are." Paul did not say: "to us there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Why? that would have been a perfect place for him to say and define and make clear who the True God of Christianity is, IF that God is really a co-equal co-eternal trinity. Paul didn't write: "to us there is one God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." He didn't phrase it like that. read it carefully. he put only the Father in the "one God" classification. we can get into at another time how Christ is "Lord" in a way (Messianically) that is different than how the Father is "Lord". And that the Father is "God" in a way different (in a Supreme Absolute sense) than how Christ is. And Paul also did not say "to us there is one God, the Father and Christ Jesus OUT OF whom all things are." In other words "ex" is never used of the Son. Even though "dia" as well as "ex" is used of the Father, the crucial point is that the Greek "ex" (for "from" or "out of") is never ever ever used of Christ in the inspired "New Testament." why is that? if Christ is just as much the Creator as the Father is? the answer is that Christ is NOT the ultimate Creator of the universe, but rather its "Maker". Because God the Father both "creates" and "makes" but the Son only "makes" in the sense of working materials that were already there provided by God the Father, the Eternal Unbegotten Supreme God, "whose Name alone is Jehovah." Amen. anymore questions? I hope this helps answer some of these things. And I hope you give at least a smidgen of consideration and fair attention to the points and positions here. -
jwfacts
Does this sound to anyone like RUSaved and SweetScholar are the same person with a split personality?
-
ozziepost
jwfacts:
Dunno 'bout that, but sweetscholar, you have the most awkward syntax, mate!
Oh, and is the word "paragraph" in your dictionary?
Just wondering.
-
AK - Jeff
I personally cannot follow posters with 10,000 word essays in each reply and post.
I'm with you Ozzie on the paragraph thing - that would make it easier to follow.
Jeff
-
sweetscholar
what exactly are you two talking about? where DON'T you see "paragraphs"?? unless for some oddball reason, on your end it's not showing as paragraphed. cuz in my screen, what I wrote is clearly divided off in sections of paragraphs. no joke. so I don't know.
-
ozziepost
sweetscholar:
That's mystifying to me!
Try this, it's a cut&paste of your last post and we'll see what it looks like when I quote it:
what exactly are you two talking about? ; ; ; ; ; ; where DON'T you see "paragraphs"?? ; ; ; ; ; unless for some oddball reason, on your end it's not showing as paragraphed. ; ; ; ; cuz in my screen, what I wrote is clearly divided off in sections of paragraphs. ; ; ; ; ; ; no joke. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; so I don't know. ; ; ; ; ; ;
Now how does that same post look on your screen? On mine, each   is a space. I'm wondering what you are doing with your typing? Are you C&P from a word processor, for example? -
jwfacts
Hi SS,
You need to tick the 'automatic Cr/Lf' box at the bottom of this box, particualarly if you are using Firefox. In Explorer there are a lot more smart edit options.