is jesus a god?

by javig 304 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  Freedom in Christ

  5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

  2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

  7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

  13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature a ; rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” b 15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

  Life by the Spirit

  16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

  19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

  22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
• 

  Inkie

  Sister Lilly, you write:

  “I tend to be bold speaking myself when it comes to my faith. Do not get me wrong I am not against boldness at all.”

  Yes, but cannot boldness also be perceived by some as pomposity? Merely a question.

  “What I refer to as pompous is when one Christian tries to tell another one that they do not have Holy Spirit because they do not see things the same way they do.”

  Did Shelby say such a thing? Many times the apostles and disciples themselves did not see things the same way but did that, does that, mean they did not receive holy spirit? It’s possible to be just simply mistaken, isn’t it? When Apollos was corrected in his belief, did he view those who corrected him as pompous?

  “And all because they cannot fathom the possiblity that THEY could be the ones who are in error.”

  And do those spoken to not consider that perhaps they might be in error and check themselves for correct doctrine? I should think that anyone when presented with new information might seriously consider what is stated.

  “Thus they label their brothers and sisters in Christ as spiritually lacking. . . .”

  Did not Paul (or was it John, can’t remember in this moment) say the same thing to and about others, and even went so far as to describe them as babes needing milk rather than food of more substance?

  “not faithful or not having Holy Spirit.”

  I don’t thing Shelby ever said this kind of thing. Or is this just an assumption on your part.

  “Maybe we (Christians) need a refresher in how to tell if someone does have God's spirit.”

  “By their fruits you will know them,” yes? That’s the text that comes immediately to mind when asked this question. I do recall that Shelby on a number of occasions stated the definition of what a Christian is or rather how one knows one is a Christian—by an anointing, yes? People, all kinds of people, say they are Christian. Simply ask them if they have received an anointing of holy spirit and then ask what their experience was in the receiving of it. People with either say they have received an anointing and be able to explain it or they will say they have not received such an anointing. So, if they say they have not received an anointing and at the same time say they are Christians (like the Great Crowd of Other Sheep), you know for a simple fact that according to the biblical definition of what a Christian IS—they are not Christians—for they lack an anointing, that which makes them Christians. Sorry, but that’s the simple truth of it. Is it not? And for those who say they have received an anointing and are able to explain it—wonderful!

  You write: “See Galatians 5. You may be surprised to see that correct bible interpretation is not evidence of Holy Spirit.” Did I say it was?

  As for Galatians 5:

  7 Y OU were running well. Who hindered YOU from keeping on obeying the truth? [Jesus: “I am the . . . truth. . . .”] 8 This sort of persuasion is not from the One calling YOU . [Does not the One calling YOU speak from the heavens?] 9 A little leaven ferments the whole lump. 10 I am confident about YOU who are in union with [the] Lord that YOU will not come to think otherwise; but the one who is causing YOU trouble will bear [his] judgment, no matter who he may be. 11 As for me, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Then, indeed, the stumbling block of the torture stake has been abolished. 12 I wish the men who are trying to overturn YOU would even get themselves emasculated. [Is Paul being bold and pompous here at the same time? Looks to me that Paul was doing the same thing you accuse Shelby of doing. But for you Paul is okay in the saying of this kind of thing and Shelby not. How does that work?]

  --Inkie
• 

  lovelylil2

  excuse me but even though Paul is correcting a wrong teaching, I do not see where he is telling his brothers that they do not have the Holy Spirit in them?

  That was my point that we may disagree on certain aspects of doctrine but who are we in Christ to tell another spiritual brother or sister that they apparently do not have Holy Spirit or listen to that spirit because we do not see things their way. Go back to the comments and you will see exactly who and what I am referring to.

  Our faith is in Christ and his sacrifice for our sins, we do not have to worry about whether or not we are in agreement on the trinity doctrine because it is not essential to our faith. This is mind, we do not want to be judging who does or does not really have God's spirit on them as WE are not the ones controlling that spirit now are we??

  Boldness yes, being puffed up with pride and feeling we are superior because of a belief we believe to be correct, no. That is not Christlike. That is all I am saying. Peace, Lilly
• 

  IwateBuddy

  AGuest has made a couple of points above that I think need to be clarified. She says -

  The Greek word “ theos” means “god”… BEFORE it means “God” (as in “the Godhead,” though such a term can be found NOWHERE in the Bible). It also means “gods” (plural) AND can mean “of God” in the same sentence as it means “gods”… but without ANY sign of an “a”, “of,” “by,” or “to” article preceding it.

  the Greek word theos means god. It can be translated into English as 'god', 'a god' or 'the god' depending on context, style, grammar and so on. Articles do not determine if the word should be translated 'of', 'by' or 'to', this is accomplished by case endings. For example

  theos - god (as the subject); theou - of god; theo - to or for god; and theon - god (as the object); theoi - gods (as the subject); theon - of gods; theois - to or for gods; theous - gods (as the object)

  Even MORE interesting is John 10:35 when contrasted with John 1:1. At John 1:1, there is no article (“of,” “a,” etc.) before the word “ theos” to indicate the word (logos) was “a” god, or “of” god, or “the” god. And so the assumption is that “the word… was God.” Yet, even though the EXACT same thing occurs at John 10:35… the translator(s) INCLUDED the article “of” (even though it is not present in the text). So that EVEN THOUGH THE GREEK STATES “If he called them gods unto whom word God came”… such that there is NO “the” (as in “the word”) AND there is no “of” (as in “of God”)… and so, the GREEK states NEITHER “unto whom [the] word” OR “[of] God came”… SOMEONE decided those two articles should in fact GO there… but NO article should go at John 1:1.

  I'm not sure why you say the EXACT same thing occurs at John 10:35. John 1.1 is a simple sentence with a linking verb. In the English sentence "The man is a spy" we see that A (the man) = B (a spy) because of word order. It is not, "A spy was the man" unless you are Yoda! Greek didn't use word order to determine meaning. John put the article with logos to show that logos goes before the equal sign, "The word was (=) God." John, the author of the gospel, was a master of language. He knew and intended for this sentence to leave questions in the reader's minds. At this point it is open to doubt wheher John means 'God', 'god' or 'a god'. Letting his readers ponder that he waited until verse 14 to spell it out for us -"The word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . "

  At John 10:35 you say, "EVEN THOUGH THE GREEK STATES “If he called them gods unto whom word God came”" but my Nestle-Aland 26 has,"If he called them gods unto whom the word of the god came . . . " If your Greek text does not have articles there you might want to throw it out! The critical apparatus indicates that every manuscript of this passage reads the same except Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) which omits the phrase "the god came." The articles are there!

  To me God is an unknowable mystery! As humans with our limitations we can only comprehend a small part of his greatness and glory. I find that JWs often resort to human terms to describe divinity as does the bible itself. But they get stuck on the math; "How can two people be one? Impossible!" "How can two sticks be one?" Well, they can't. But God is not a person or a stick. God has a divine nature we can't comprehend. How can any person be present everywhere, hearing every prayer, counting all the hairs on our heads? We can't. How can God be Jehovah, Jesus and Spirit all at once? I really don't know but If he can create the world and exist outside of time then I can go along with three-in-one just fine.
• 

  javig

  To psacramento:

  “No where is it stated that Jesus is God, no where, It may be "implied" if one chooses to interpret it that way, but it is never stated as such.”

  I found your statement very interesting. But let me see, does the bible state jesus is GOD or not? Where?...i found many scriptures that clearly stated HE is GOD…but instead of telling you those scriptures I will help you find them with a couple of clues…

  First, we know Jesus was a jew, spoke jew, was familiar with OT scripotures and every tiny and bigl law written in the mosaic law and yet fulfill every law. Can a god or merely man do that?

  Second, every time the Pharisees tried to rebuke him in breaking a law he had a righteous justification to tell his accusers they were wrong and why he was right. Who else could perfectly apply the law in every aspect?

  third, since jesus was a jew, he clearly told the leaders(pharisees, saduces, etc) in that time he was GOD in their own understanding and language, not ours, example, before Abraham was I am and so on…. We can argue about the greek “I am” vs the “I am” from exodus but instead lets analyzed the context…

  in other words what I am trying to tell you is…put on a jew mind set and thinking abilities, then you will see your error. Find what it means, Son of GOD, I am, Son of Man, My father and I are one, etc... to the jews back then. In order to appreciate the trinity or the deity of Christ we have to cross from our time and culture to Jesus time and culture and may be even back to Adam and Eve.

  And now a little interpretation: You can't have God without Jesus, nor Jesus without God….i like that I never see it that way…
• 

  javig

  To inkie:

  Hi... I would like to understand why you personally don’t see the bible as many, including me, to be inspired and infallible word of GOD. If you can? answer me these questions. Take your time answering I am not in a rush.

  Also, as good as the “scriptures” are (and I grant you they are good, to a point”…tell me, to what point they are good?

  That while the Bible contains “some scripture,” the Bible also contains writings that are not “scripture.”…please define what do you mean “some scriptures” and “not scriptures”?

  what is the meaning you are putting to the word “srciptures”?

  which bible translation you personally see as a truthfull rendering of the original manuscript?

  What parts of the bible you don’t take as scripture? And inspired? And infallible?
• 

  javig

  To lovelylil2:

  Thanks for that comment.

  God is not one in number but in unity. You clearly stated that truth when you mention Elohim is in the plural.

  “the trinity doctrine because it is not essential to our faith” I heard these many times but they never explained why the Trinity doctrine is not essential to our faith…can you explain…take your time in answering…tnanks
• 

  javig

  any jw out there?

  i am interested in studying the 144,000 thousands doctrine and read it from your publications...contact me if you can help me thanks...
• 

  lovelylil2

  Javig,

  The word trinity does not appear in the scriptures. It was coined by the early church fathers to help explain a very difficult concept which is exactly what the nature of God is.

  We have God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Each of these three are clearly mentioned in scripture. The trinity is used to show that they are all in complete union with one another and are part of what makes up the one God. God's very nature and essense is that he is 3 persons (for lack of a better word) that equal the sum total of one God. Just like we humans have three parts according to scripture, mind, body and soul, that make up our one self.

  But the fact is that the exact word trinity does not appear in the text. And even with this teaching, it is still difficult for us to grasp the concept of God and his nature. He is infinite in his wisdom but we are not.

  Its ok if we do not fully grasp the idea of the trinity because Jesus never said we must understand this in order to be saved. Our faith is in Christ and his attoning sacrifice for our sins, not in the trinity doctrine. So it is not essential to our faith in Christ. You know even Paul struggled with areas of understanding, for instance he stated that we (including himself) could not fully understand the breadth, or depth or length or God's love for us. But he knew God loves us and loves us greatly.

  So understanding every point of scripture or doctrine of the church is not what is important or essential to our salvation. What is, is that we know and believe that Christ died for our sins. Like Paul said he preached "Christ cruxified", that is what is foremost of importance for Christians. Not a doctrine that was developed much later. Peace, Lilly
• 

  lovelylil2

  I would like to add to my above comments;

  The doctrine of the trinity was developed not only to explain the nature of God (one that is triune) but also to combat heresies in the church such as Arianism, which is the belief that Jesus is the highest of God's created beings and thus is referred to as god but not the God.

  .