>yes jehovah os lord ans so is jesus.and we have to be thankful to both of them.but this doesnt not mean they are the same person.
They are not the SAME PERSON and the Trinity doctrine does not teach that. It is the name for a scriptural principle that reconciles the Hebrew belief in one God with the obvious fact that He has revealed Himself, in scripture, in the form of three different persons. This also accounts for the Bible being a 'progressive revelation and not some static, unchanging set of books.
There are hints at the Trinity in the Old TEstament but it is not clear until Christ came, claimed to be God, demonstrated His deity by the signs and miracles and then laid down His life only to pick it up again three days later. THAT is the gospel: 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8. Read it in a real Bible and not the NWT.
Why in the world would the almighty Lord of the universe be limited to the one dimensional biblegod that the Watchtower worships?
Rex
Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research
by Kristofer 51 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Shining One
-
stillajwexelder
The Christian view of the trinity is far different from what the WT claims it
Well which branch of Christianity - Catholic, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Church of England, Methodist, Other Anglican, Scottish and Presbyterian, Born Again Christian - I have studied most of them and have friends who are in most of these denominations. If I ask thenm what the Trinity is most of them give different answers. I have never yet had a consisten answer of what a "Christian" thinks the Trinity is.
When I saw Nuns on the Run , listening to Robby Coltrane explain to Eric Idle what the Trinity was - I found hilarious
-
Leolaia
Other than a few mistakes over the last hundred years, the WT has correctly described the Trinity in its defenses.
Like these?
*** ZWT 9/15 1902 pp. 277-278 ***
They still hold the dark ages view of Trinity --that three times one is one. That Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three names for one God. Hence, that the Father and Holy Spirit died if Christ died. But that since God cannot die, and the universe could not be supposed to go on for even one day without its Creator and Ruler, and since Christ is "the same in substance" with the Father and Holy Spirit, therefore Christ cannot have died really, but merely in appearance -- deceptively.
*** Finished Mystery 1917 p. 11 ***
Which God gave unto Him.— "The declaration that ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself,’ if it were not backed up as it is by a score of other testimonies from the same interested and inspired Teacher, is a contradiction to the common thought of Trinitarians, that the Son is the Father."
*** Reconciliation 1928 pp. 117-118 ***
The trinitarians say: 'God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one, equal in power, in person, and eternity, and are three in one.' Jesus said: "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) The clergy say: ‘Jesus was his own father.’ They do not tell the truth. The true relationship between God and Jesus is that of Father and Son, and this relationship is always acknowledged .... Jesus’ own words are given as further proof that he was not his own father.
*** Let God Be True 1946 pp. 83-84 ***
God-fearing persons who want to know Jehovah and serve him find it a bit difficult to love and worship a complicated, freakish-looking, three-headed God. The clergy who inject such ideas will contradict themselves in the very next breath by stating that God created man in his own image; and certainly no one has ever seen a three-headed human creature.
*** w51 1/1 p. 21 "Put Off Every Weight" *** .
Rejecting the supremacy of Almighty God, orthodox religion champions a pagan doctrine of a trinity of gods, not one supreme God, but three coequal ones. On and on one could go pointing out the errors of Christendom’s religions—Christian in name, but actually as pagan as ancient Rome, Greece and Babylon whence her religions have been drawn.
*** w62 9/15 pp. 554-555 "The Word"—Who Is He? According to John ***
Christendom believes that the fundamental doctrine of her teachings is the Trinity. By Trinity she means a triune or three-in-one God. That means a God in three Persons, namely, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." Since this is said to be, not three Gods, but merely "one God in three Persons," then the term God must mean the Trinity; and the Trinity and God must be interchangeable terms. On this basis let us quote John 1:1, 2 and use the equivalent term for God, and let us see how it reads:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity. The same was in the beginning with the Trinity." But how could such a thing be? If the Word was himself a Person and he was with the Trinity, then there would be four Persons. But the Word is said by the trinitarians to be the Second Person of the Trinity, namely, "God the Son." But even then, how could John say that the Word, as God the Son, was the Trinity made up of three Persons? How could one Person be three?
However, let the trinitarians say that in John 1:1 God means just the First Person of the Trinity, namely, "God the Father," and so the Word was with God the Father in the beginning. On the basis of this definition of God, how could it be said that the Word, who they say is "God the Son," is "God the Father"? And where does their "God the Holy Ghost" enter into the picture? If God is a Trinity, was not the Word with "God the Holy Ghost" as well as with "God the Father" in the beginning?
Suppose, now, they say that, in John 1:1, 2, God means the other two Persons of the Trinity, so that in the beginning the Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. In this case we come to this difficulty, namely, that, by being God, the Word was God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, the other two Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Word, or "God the Son," the Second Person of the Trinity, is said to be also the First Person and the Third Person of the Trinity. It does not solve the difficulty to say that the Word was the same as God the Father and was equal to God the Father but still was not God the Father. If this were so, it must follow that the Word was the same as God the Holy Ghost and was equal to God the Holy Ghost but still was not God the Holy Ghost.
And yet the trinitarians teach that the God of John 1:1, 2 is only one God, not three Gods! So is the Word only one-third of God?
Since we cannot scientifically calculate that 1 God (the Father) + 1 God (the Son) + 1 God (the Holy Ghost) = 1 God, then we must calculate that 1/3 God (the Father) + 1/3 God (the Son) + 1/3 God (the Holy Ghost) = 3/3 God, or 1 God. Furthermore, we would have to conclude that the term "God" in John 1:1, 2 changes its personality, or that "God" changes his personality in one sentence. Does he?
Are readers of The Watchtower now confused? Doubtlessly so! ....
However, according to Trinity teachers, when "the Word became flesh," Mary became the mother of God. But since they say God is a Trinity, then the Jewish virgin Mary became the mother of merely a third of God, not "the mother of God." She became the mother of only one Person of God, the Person that is put second in the formula "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost." So Mary was merely the mother of "God the Son"; she was not the mother of "God the Father," neither the mother of "God the Holy Ghost."
But if Roman Catholics and others insist that Mary was "the mother of God," then we are compelled to ask, Who was the father of God? If God had a mother, who was his father? Thus we see again how the Trinity teaching leads to the ridiculous.
***
w62 4/15 p. 235 Christendom Has Failed God! After Her End, What? ***Christendom has copied the heathen, pagan nations of Asia in teaching that God is a trinity, three Gods in one Person. But who can explain this so-called Trinity and harmonize it with the book of Christianity, the Bible? Hence when the people, who cannot understand the Trinity, ask for an explanation, the clergymen take to flight by the escape route of saying that the Trinity is a mystery.
*** pe chap. 4 p. 39 God—Who Is He? ***
According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three persons in one God, that is, there is "one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many religious organizations teach this, even though they admit it is "a mystery." Are such views of God correct?
Well, did Jesus ever say that he was God? No, he never did. Rather, in the Bible he is called "God’s Son." And he said: "The Father is greater than I am." (John 10:34-36; 14:28) Also, Jesus explained that there were some things that neither he nor the angels knew but that only God knew. (Mark 13:32) Further, on one occasion Jesus prayed to God, saying: "Let, not my will, but yours take place." (Luke 22:42) If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? In fact, following Jesus’ death, the Scripture says: "This Jesus God resurrected." (Acts 2:32) Thus the Almighty God and Jesus are clearly two separate persons.
***
jv chap. 10 p. 126 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***Brother Russell outspokenly exposed the foolishness of professing to believe the Bible while at the same time teaching a doctrine such as the Trinity, which contradicts what the Bible says. Thus he wrote: "In what a jumble of contradictions and confusion do they find themselves who say that Jesus and the Father are one God! This would involve the idea that our Lord Jesus acted the hypocrite when on earth and only pretended to address God in prayer, when He Himself was the same God. . . . Again, the Father has always been immortal, hence could not die. How, then, could Jesus have died? The Apostles are all false witnesses in declaring Jesus’ death and resurrection if He did not die. The Scriptures declare, however, that He did die." Thus, at an early point in their modern-day history, Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly rejected Christendom’s Trinity dogma in favor of the reasonable, heartwarming teaching of the Bible itself.
-
Death to the Pixies
Leo,
I will get back to Justin maybe tomorrow, I got sidetracked with looking up WT quotes from your latest
Yes, that would be a few of the errors, the reverse is true of Trins to JW theology. They (WTS) are much more careful in their language today. Just a couple suggestions from the 62' quotes.
<<Suppose, now, they say that, in John 1:1, 2, God means the other two Persons of the Trinity, so that in the beginning the Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. In this case we come to this difficulty, namely, that, by being God, the Word was God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, the other two Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Word, or "God the Son," the Second Person of the Trinity, is said to be also the First Person and the Third Person of the Trinity. It does not solve the difficulty to say that the Word was the same as God the Father and was equal to God the Father but still was not God the Father. If this were so, it must follow that the Word was the same as God the Holy Ghost and was equal to God the Holy Ghost but still was not God the Holy Ghost. >>>
Reply: This does not seem to be a mis-rep, but it, like Greg Stafford in the more recent times is merely taking what Trintarians say, and showing the folly of it. ,If the Logos is the same God (or part of, depending on who you speak too) as the "God" he is with, then the ipso facto is, that the Logos is the Father, or the Trinity, depending on who you take the articular "theos" as. This is also where the Trins must make a questionable distinction between "person" and "being". This is why P/Harner politely responded to "Colwells Rule" to get past this msitake, and started arguing a strictly qualitative sense of "theos" in ref. to the Logos. "Celebrated WT Scholars" beat them to the punch here though:>) Sorry, Scholar cracks me up too!
<<<Since we cannot scientifically calculate that 1 God (the Father) + 1 God (the Son) + 1 God (the Holy Ghost) = 1 God, then we must calculate that 1/3 God (the Father) + 1/3 God (the Son) + 1/3 God (the Holy Ghost) = 3/3 God, or 1 God. Furthermore, we would have to conclude that the term "God" in John 1:1, 2 changes its personality, or that "God" changes his personality in one sentence. Does he?>>>
Reply: This one is not defining the Trinity, but showing the error of it as seen by Unitarians. If we take the year into account, which by and large, at least in majority of scholars, the more sophisticated "nature" arguments were not being pushed as much as a definite "theos" in ref. to the Logos.
"Christendom has copied the heathen, pagan nations of Asia in teaching that God is a trinity, three Gods in one Person. But who can explain this so-called Trinity and harmonize it with the book of Christianity, the Bible? Hence when the people, who cannot understand the Trinity, ask for an explanation, the clergymen take to flight by the escape route of saying that the Trinity is a mystery. In this way they leave the people in great confusion and unable to understand the Bible and its message, and unable to call upon the divine name Jehovah for salvation through Jesus Christ. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21) In this way, too, they have misrepresented God to the heathen or pagans, who see in this TRINITARIAN GOD a resemblance to their own false gods."
Reply: This one seems to be a typo, as in the Capped part above, they make mention of just "One God". MAybe not, I would need to read the entire article.
-
Death to the Pixies
I will try to be as brief as possible, there were some points I did not get into for the sake of brevity, but I think this sums up the point of the SYBTB:
<<<The Society's characterization of the beliefs of the apologists is consistently skewed to mention whatever is consistent with their own theology (even attributing statements and views the apologists did not hold in some cases) while omitting everything that would be inconvenient with their theology.....especially all the beliefs that would serve as ingrediants to the fourth-century Trinity doctrine (i.e. the Deity of Christ, the unity in substance between the Son and Father, the relationship between the three Persons as a Trinity, the co-equality of Christ with the Father, etc.), which gives the misleading appearance that the notions of the Trinity appeared out of nowhere in the fourth century. That is imho the main issue here. You say that they are "free to interpret" the views of the church fathers, but that doesn't mean that one can characterize the views of someone any which way one wants. It is hardly conceivable that the authors of the broshure missed all the affirmations of Christ's Deity and trinitarian thinking in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. The consistent, systematic nature of the misrepresentation tells me that it is deliberate and thus dishonest.>>>
Reply:
a.) The WT believs the 1st Century Church taught the Divinity of Christ, as we acknowledge it as well. So, the inclusion of these ideas would have done no harm to the WT attack on the Trinity. I agree, it would have been nice to been more thorough, but this does not convict them.
b.) You are forgetting the importance of what the Trinity is in its ultimate, final state. Merely having SOME of the building blocks there for a formal doctrine is not enough, it is the One-God, in 3 co-equal persons which is important. This idea did spring up after "many centuries". .
Leo: "What did they leave out about Justin Martyr? He claimed that the Son was the "Lord God" of the OT who appeared as the "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" in the burning bush (1 Apology 62-63),
Reply:I briefly touched on Justin's belief in the Divinity of christ, and to some extent you seem to agree in your ackowledgment of his belief in a Second God. This gets to the core, or lackthereof, of Justins' theology. This "Lord God" "The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" is *a distinct God*, from the God that is the "Maker of all things". This does not help an Orthodox view of "God". From Trypho, same topic, different apology:
Dialogue with Trypho LVI-III
"Even if this were so, my friends, that an Angel and God were together in the vision seen by Moses, yet, as has already been proved to you, it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, but it will be He who has been proved to you to Abraham, ministering to , and likewise carrying into execution His counsel in the judgement of Sodom, so that, even though it be as you say, that there were two-an Angel and God- He who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the Earth........ (Trypho LVI-III)
"......He who is said to appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things-numerically I mean, not in will. I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the World-above whom there is no God- has not wished HIm both to do and to engage himself with" (Trypho)
"At this point, the Deity of Jesus was being explained contrary to a God-head of 3 persons. Between the Father and Son, we Have Two Gods, one the Almighty Maker of all things", and the other that gets to be called "God" because The Almighty said it was OK. (cough)
Leo:that "Angel" was a title given to the Son because he announced God to man (1 Apology 62, Dialogue 76), that "God" was also a title given to the Son (Dialogue 34, 61, 124, 127 "God the Son"), but not only is he "called God" but "he is God, and always shall be God" (Dialogue 58),
Reply: True, but a key point is that he is called at times Angel, just like he is called "God". Because God allowed it to happen. It is derived divinity:
"I shall give you another testimony, my friends said I "from the scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning [who was]a Certain Rational Power [proceding] from HImself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and the Lord and Logos. For he can be called by those names, since He ministers to the Fathers will and since he was begotten of the Father by an act of will " (Trypho LXI)
Leo: and thus is to be worshipped (1 Apology 6, Dialogue 68)
Reply: Going from memory I believe the context has "God alone" as being worshipped, but because God (Father))sees fit, he allows another to recieve it as well. A less interpretetive view than the one given in the ANF series has the Angels also recieving "worship", and the implication being that Jesus is an Angel , like the "other good Angels". (CHAP. VI.--CHARGE OF ATHEISM REFUTED From Justin's First Apology)
Justin also sees the Son being generated as a "beginning", by an act of the Father. IMO, if we do not see an explicit "eternal generaration" argument from Justin, we should lean toward Justin believeing in the temporality of the Son. The work entitled "The biblical exegesis of Justin Martyr" says of Justin's "begotten before all creation":
""The language here is such that it cannot be argued that Justin considered the Logos to be eternal. The most that can be said about the Logos is that he was created before anything else"
You interpret Justin differently, but it cannot be said that he was mis-represented in the SYBTB. There were also a lot of quotes by Justin the SYBTB left out that could have been very helpful. The context leading up the ECF in the brochure was such various questions as "Does the NT speak CLEARLY of the Trinity", then they segue to the ECF, and showed that they did not speak CLEARLY of a Trinitarian God-head. Which they did not, they interpreteted the Divinity of Christ differently.
Sincerely.
-
Reslight
I am not with the JWs, but there is nothing in Joel 2:32 and Romans 10:9-13 that gives any evidence that Jesus is his God, Yahweh, and there is definitely nothing there that gives any evidence of three persons in Yahweh.
Some translations render Romans 10:13 as calling upon Jehovah or Yahweh. In Joel 2:32, the Hebrew has the divine name; thus the word "Kurios", meaning "Lord" has been substituted in Romans 10:13 for the divine name, Yahweh (Jehovah).
Certainly, Jesus is the means that Yahweh has provided for salvation (John 3:16,17); no one can come to Yahweh but through Jesus (John 14:6), and no other means has been given by Yahweh for salvation than the name of Jesus. (Acts 4:12) Jesus' name means: "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh is savior," which ascribes the actual source of salvation to Yahweh. (John 3:16; Romans 5:8,10; 1 Corinthians 15:57; 2 Corinthian 5:19-21; Titus 3:5,6; Hebrews 13:21; 1 John 4:9,10) Thus to properly call upon the name of Jesus as the spokesperson and one anointed by Yahweh (Deuteronomy 18:15,18,19; Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 4:18,21), would essentially be the same as calling upon the name of Yahweh. (Matthew 10:14; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 13:20; Romans 1:8; 7:25; 14:26; Philippians 1:11; 2:11) But to ascertain whether Romans 10:13 is calling Jesus Yahweh, let us go through the tenth chapter of Romans briefly, to see exactly who Paul speaks of.
Romans 10:1: Brothers, my heart's desire and my prayer to God is for Israel, that they may be saved.
In verse one, Paul says he prays to God, the God and Father of Jesus, for the salvation of Israel. Who is the God of Israel? This, of course, is Yahweh. (Exodus 16:12; 20:2; 34:32) Through Jesus we learn that the God of Israel -- Yahweh -- is the Father of Jesus. (Deuteronomy 18:15,18,19; Matthew 23:39; Luke 13:35; John 5:43; 8:54; 10:25) Paul thus recognizes Yahweh, the God of Israel as the source of salvation.
Romans 10:2: For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge."
Romans 10:3: For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they didn't subject themselves to the righteousness of God."
Romans 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
In these verses, Paul discusses Israel's relationship with God -- Yahweh. He says that they are ignorant of God's righteousness (Romans 3:22), and sought to make themselves righteous by means of obedience to the Law. Then he reveals that the righteousness of God is in Christ, who is the end of the law [covenant] to everyone who believes. See:
"How God's Son Condemned Sin in the Flesh"
Romans 10:5: For Moses writes about the righteousness of the law, "The one who does them will live by them."
Paul is still speaking about the relationship of Israel with Yahweh, the God of Israel. Anyone who could keep the Law would be totally righteous, having the right to life thereby. If it were possible to do so, then righteousness and life would have come by the Law.
Romans 10:6: But the righteousness which is of faith says this, "Don't say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down);
Romans 10:7: or, 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.)"
Those who seek righteousness by faith are are not hidden from the truth.. It is not something far off in heaven or in the grave. Those of faith do not have go to heaven to find the Anointed One of Yahweh, nor do they have to go to the grave to try to bring him back from the dead. This thing is not hidden from the one of faith, neither is it afar off -- difficult to understand. (See also: Deuteronomy 30:11-14; notice that Paul is not quoting Deuteronomy, but he does use similar phraseology.)
In this Paul is still writing about the relationship of Israel with the God of Israel, Yahweh. He is showing that the proper way to obtain the righteousness of God is through faith, which he goes on to show is through the faith in the ransom sacrifice given by One Anointed by Yahweh, that is Jesus.
Romans 10:8: But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart;" that is, the word of faith, which we preach:
Romans 10:9: that if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Here Paul points out the way to Yahweh's righteousness as provided through Jesus. (John 3:17; Romans 3:22-24; 5:1,9,10; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Galatians 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:9) We must remember that it is Yahweh who made Jesus "Lord" and "Christ" [Christ means "anointed one"] (Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36) Many read this verse as though only Jesus is spoken of, but we note the context is about Yahweh and the salvation he provides through Jesus.
Romans 10:10: For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:11: For the scripture says, "Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
In Romans 10:11, Paul uses language similar to that of Isaiah 28:16: "therefore thus says the Lord [Adonay] Yahweh, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner -[stone] of sure foundation: he who believes shall not be in haste." Here is it Yahweh is who is the provider of the sure foundation, and then he tells us that he who believes in him, that is, in the foundation provided by Yahweh, shall not be in haste. The one of faith does not have to be anxious about trying to find any other source or any other way of salvation, for it is found in the sure foundation provided by Yahweh, nor does the one of faith in this sure foundation have any reason to have any hint of disappointment or shame in the foundation provided by Yahweh.
Romans 10:12: For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him.
Here the apostle joins the God of Israel with the believing Greeks (representing those outside the law covenant). Yahweh is the same Lord (the One spoken of as Adonay -- Lord -- in Isaiah 28:16 just referenced) over all, and will richly bless all who call on him.
Romans 10:13: For, "Whoever will call on the name of Yawheh will be saved."
This brings us to the scripture in question. Paul here makes reference to whoever will call upon the name of Yahweh will be saved. If we consider scriptures leading up to this scripture, it should be plain that Paul is making reference to Yahweh, the God of Israel, with whom both Jew and Gentile needs reconciliation. That reconciliation, however, as the apostle points out, is by faith, not by the keeping of the law. While it is highly doubtful that Paul substituted "Kurios" here for God's name, even if he did it is evident that he is referring to Yahweh, for it is Yahweh with whom both Jew and Gentile needs to be reconciled (Romans 5:9,10), and it is from Yahweh, the Father, that one comes to through the means that Yahweh provided for salvation, that is, in his Son, Jesus. -- Acts 10:43; 20:21; John 3:17; 6:44
Romans 10:14: How, then, shall they call on him whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And shall they hear without a preacher?
Again in verse 14 the thought is primarily of Yahweh, who sent his Son. No one can call upon Yahweh if they don't believe in him through his Son Jesus. (Romans 3:22-24; 5:1,11; 7:25; 14:26) The vast majority have never come to Yahweh, he who provided the "ransom for all", which will be testified, made known, in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5,6) Thus all heathen will hear, they will all be brought to a knowledge of Yahweh and his Son Christ Jesus in the age to come. -- Isaiah 2:2-4.
See the study:
"Mankind's Course to the Day of Judgment"
http://reslight.net/course.html
and the studies I have online concerning the trinity:
http:///reslight.net/l-trinity.html
Christian love,
Ronald -
Shining One
>I have never yet had a consisten answer of what a "Christian" thinks the Trinity is.
You are either lying or completely uninformed. The above mentioned denominations all agree on the fundamental orthodox doctrines. That's what DEFINES them and separates them from your beloved cult.
Rex -
Honesty
you sure have.i love how the bible is so clear on this matter.no were in the bible does it say jehovah jesus and the holy spirt are the same person.only if we twist scriptures may it look like they are.but if we look at what the bible realy says its so simple.jehovah is God jesus is his son.not to hard to understand. why do some people have to make it complicated
Hmmmm.... So PMJ, can you explain John 1:1 and John 1:14? Is Jesus God or is He a god? Did a god become human (flesh)? Based on your reply to the first 2 questions, how many Gods do the JW's have? There is nothing hidden in these questions to trick or deceive you. Please do not ignore these questions. Thanks, Bob Evans Walland, TN.
-
Death to the Pixies
Because I am bored, I Just read thru this link and am amazed at how ineffective it is. First he declares:
"That same paragraph that the Watchtower is alluding to also says that it was Christ who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, and identified Himself as Jehovah. The Watchtower seems to ignore that."
Reply: You could see how this guy could make this mistake, but it is still a mistake. Justin does not identify Jesus as "Jehovah". He knows little of the DN. He equatd him with titles from the OT not,the name Jehovah directly.. Further, even the Father himself is "un-nameable" and "curse those who attempt to name him, as the rave with hopeless madness" (Apology II) Sounds a bit more Mormon than Orthodox Christian.
<<<Thus, for the Watchtower to assert that Justin Martyr said Jesus was a created angel and not "God" in the proper sense shows that the Watchtower writers are completely unfamiliar with Justin Martyr altogether.>>>
Reply: Justin goes to great leanghts to qualify his use of "God" to Jesus, making it clear it is not as the Almighty, nor the "Maker of all things". To Justin Jesus is a God, subject to the "Maker of all thngs". What this author means by "proper sense" we do not know, but my guess is, it has nothing to do with Justins usage. Justin's Monotheism , if we can even call it that, is more reflective of his period, and in no way resembles the Modern Trinitarian use. Anyone have any comments from this portion of the link?
-
LittleToe
DTTP:
equatd him with titles from the OT not,the name Jehovah directly.
What language was Justin writing in again?
Justin goes to great leanghts to qualify his use of "God" to Jesus, making it clear it is not as the Almighty, nor the "Maker of all things". To Justin Jesus is a God, subject to the "Maker of all thngs":
So I guess Paul got it wrong then?
Col.1:16, 17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.