by javig 304 Replies latest watchtower bible
\..And Jesus could rightly be called Eternal Father as he, by his death, allowed us to live if we accept him... I dont see a problem there...
You should care as it speaks volumes. JWs teach that there is only one Father, and that only the Father is eternal. To say that it only means he "allowed us to live if we accept him" is pure fabrication. Look at all of the proof texts that prove you wrong.
so let's get that one out of the way... God has a name -- Jesus has a name - both different, both meanings in Hebrew different,
Jesus, the man of the God-man hypostatic union, does indeed have a different name as the creature is not the Almighty. But He also assumed God's name "I AM" as God the Son, not the creature who is not the Almighty.
Also, when Jesus went back to heaven, he did not go with his human body as flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom as shown in 1 Corinthians, one of your statements indicated that, or am I mis reading it...
Yes, you are misreading it completely. You need to stop and think, for yourself maybe? The resurrected body was GLORIFIED, flesh and bones (not flesh and blood, Luke 24;39), but not exactly what our bodies are today, a glorified body that can and does enter into the kingdom of heaven. Read this section, and others, carefully if your really care. You're just mumbling what they told you to mumble, but I know you are smarter than that.
AGuest,
There are many personal words and speculation in your research. You are playing a dangerous game by proclaiming a name of God, who not even his own son Jesus would speak his "name", but apparently you have this authority.
Every place in the Bible where you point out "JAH" is totally incorrect, every time in scripture it is the Tetragrammaton, again going back to what Hebrew's believe to be a sacred name, and I believe this too, because who are you to know the name of God or even to proclaim it. So your teachings are blasphemous. The Tetragrammaton was made in a way so that it was not written exactly as the name of God would be, again going back to keeping the name sacred by not writting it or pronouncing it. And it was never written in anyones name, such as you think, so as to keep God's name SACRED, understood! Again keeping something SACRED is keeping it secret and in reverence, and not spoken or written, do we need to take out a dictionary for the word SACRED, or shall I ask my 3 year old what that means? The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is to be used as a "word reference" and nothing more. Not to mention, its based on the King James version, which was written and translated in 1611 17th century English, is that how old your dictionary is now days, I think not. Many words in Hebrew or Greek have more meanings than they do in English, which English is limited with such meanings (especially in 1611!). Your tapping into a world where English didn't exist.
You don't flatter me (or anyone here) with your Strong's word referencing, which most people here probably all have the book, as well as myself. I don't apreciated your condescending way of speaking, such as "dear one".
The first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega...only refers to GOD himself, and no other.
John 10:30 (very clear)
You can put your fancy twist of words in there and speculation all you want...the message is simple
I like to think of an old saying...If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...its a duck!
Isaiah 44:6-8
Isaiah 48:12-13
Exodus 20:3 (in reference to your speculation of "Besides" or "Beside", which ever you like best) Read...Isaiah 12:1-2 (there is no issue with "beside" or "besides" or "apart")
Exodus 20:7 (I think this message is clear enough, hmm)
Read them, its not hard to hear the message, its very CLEAR
Please, everyone, let the scripture speak for itself, don't through your personal thoughts into it or speculation, let it unfold as it does clearly.
Here is a question for you AGuest...who raised Jesus from death? Was is it God or Jesus himself?
Surely only God could do such a thing...what do you think?
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
compare with
Acts 7:9
While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Where do spirits return?
Who does Stephen ask to receive his spirit?
Sacolton, to my point exaclty! The message is clear yes. But I think thats Acts 7:59 not 7:9, probably a typo.
Here are a few others...
John 2:19
John 10:17
So prove to me AGuest, that God and Jesus are not one. Its not a test for me, its for You vs. the Scripture.
AGuest...
"But it does look like I’ll have to “see” your Genesis 2:4 and Exodus 3:14… and “raise” you an Exodus 6:3, some related “vowel pointings”"
Exodus 6:3 ...again the Tetragrammaton not your blasphemous name of God, and if you could notice the footnote letter "beside" it "d" and read below it says...
"See note at Exodus 3:15"
Exodus 3:15 ...again the Tetragrammaton not your blasphemous name of God, and if you see the footnote letter "beside" it "c" and read below it says...
"The Hebrew for LORD sounds like and may be derived from the Hebrew for I Am in verse 14."
Well, this is very strange isn't it? By the way, I actually typed this myself.
The Tetragrammaton is not a Hebrew word, it is what we call now days an "Acronym"
Sorry I couldn't respond within the seconds after your post, I actually read and research to give the correct answers.
Here is a question for you AGuest...who raised Jesus from death? Was is it God or Jesus himself?
Surely only God could do such a thing...what do you think?
Actually, ...
Jesus Christ resurrected Himself - (John 2:19 - 22)
Jesus made it clear that he would resurrect himself from the dead. Referring to his body Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” (John 2:19-22). Acts 2:32 appears to contradict Jesus. It provides, “This Jesus God raised up” (see also Galatians 1:1). To resolve this inconsistency the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that John 2:19-22 does not really mean that Jesus would raise himself up, even though it says so, but that “Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection” (Reasoning, 423,424). They rely on Luke 8:43-48 where the ill woman with the flow of blood was healed not because she healed herself but because she exercised faith in Christ’s power to heal (ibid., 423), and this exercise of faith made her responsible for the healing.
This analogy, however, is misplaced because John 10:17, 18 says that Christ’s power to resurrect himself was a command (NAB) or charge (RS) given to Jesus from the Father. Yes, he was responsible for his resurrection as the obedient servant on a mission, but he also exercised a power granted to Him to raise Himself from the dead, a power and command which the ill woman of Luke 8:43-48 was not given, and who was not the product of a hypostatic union of God and woman.
This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father. (John 10:17, 18 NAB)
Jesus was not talking about some abstract “responsibility” for his resurrection as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim (Reasoning, 424). The language is unambiguous. He had the “power,” and he exercised it.
Neither was Jesus claiming, as the Jehovah's Witnesses argue, that Jesus raised “himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent…” (ibid.) because it was not the dead created humanity of Christ - who was not God - who resurrected Jesus, but the divine second Person of the Trinity, God the Son who is fully God, and who never dies (Habakkuk 1:12 NWT). And it was He who was in a position to raise up the dead body of Christ. Recall that the three Persons of the Trinity never act independently of each other (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300), so the act of the divine Jesus was the act of the Father. “All works of the triune God ad extra are indivisibly one (Encyclopedia of Religion, 56).
This illustrates a fundamental flaw in the Jehovah's Witnesses’ analytical process, their inability to reconcile two “apparently” conflicting concepts which do not conflict at all. Galatians 1:1 states that God raised up Jesus, but John 2:19-22 says that Jesus raised himself. Rather than reading both passages together, they discard one in favor of the other. Or ignore it. Or try to reason it away, or just change the Bible to accommodate their theology, but in so doing they violate their own often repeated admonition to read different verses pertaining to a particular topic together.
Looking at Scripture from their point of view, then, the Bible would be full of irreconcilable contradictions: both Jesus and God can’t be Lord, but there is only one true Lord in the highest sense (Ephesians 4:5). Both Christ and God if separate entities can’t be Savior granting eternal salvation, yet there is only one such Savior (Isaiah 43:11; Titus 1:4, 2:6). If Jesus is God and the Father is God and there can only be one God, there is no contradiction in the Trinitarian world, but not so with the Jehovah's Witnesses whose answer lies in reducing all of Jesus to the status of man and denying the divine unity, nothing more.
If Jesus is alone in “having immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16 Green’s Literal Translation) it would mean, for the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Almighty is not immortal, but we know that is not true (Isaiah 57:15). Similarly, all things were created and exist for God, but all things were created for Jesus as well (Colossians 1:16). And, Isaiah 44:24 states that God made all things, but at John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 it is the Word who made all things and all things were created through Him and for Him, to mention just a few of these examples.
And, if there is only one true God (John 17:3) and Jesus is the true God (1 John 5:20), is there really a conflict? Not if you believe in the triune God which supplies a very reasonable answer if you take the time to understand what the doctrine actually teaches. These apparently mutually exclusive concepts aren’t exclusive at the expense of one or the other, but must be read together and combined which leads to only one conclusion - Jesus was, and is, God.
The Almighty would never inspire such blatant contradictions in His Bible, and He didn’t. So if God raised up Jesus and the divine Person of Christ raised himself then Jesus must be God if one is to give weight and meaning to both passages within the Trinitarian context.
Or it could be completely different but some persons superstitions get in the way.
Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
That says it all.
Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
That says it all
Amen, SAC.
Even yet again at 2 Peter 1:1
2 Peter 1-1 I, Simon Peter, am a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. I write this to you whose experience with God is as life-changing as ours, all due to our God's straight dealing and the intervention of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. MSG
Sylvia
