by ClassAvenger 44 Replies latest watchtower bible
amac,
As a jw, I NEVER experienced this. Instead, I was in a constant state of fear and denial about what the bible really taught.I had to ignore what it said most of the time and obey my earthy authorities. There is no comparison. I can't possibly compare the two except to say day and night. dj
are a husband and wife 'one flesh'? are they equal? can the husband know something the wife doesn't or vice versa?
I do not understand the big deal about the Trinity. If you are a Christian and you profess the Creed, it does not define Trinity in the way JW accuse people of believing in it. And to be Christian, the Creed is all you need. The rest is extra.
JWs make issues out of non-issues to cloud the real issues.
Ravyn
another thing JWs do with the Trinity to confuse the issue---they use GOD in the place of the FATHER.
All three are GOD. But since they do not believe that, and only recognize the Father as God, they tend to refer to only the Father when they use God. How can God talk to God? Easy---when the FATHER talks to the SON! They can't grasp this yet they expect others to believe that they are the faithful and discreet slave? NO other religion in existence even considers that parable as anything but a parable!
So when you use GOD in reference to the Trinity, understand that everyone except JWs take that to mean the FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT. JWs only take God to be the Father, who they call Jehovah---yet the SON never did...not even in the 'model prayer'..hmmmmmmm but that's another topic.....
Ravyn
Class Avenger,
You JW friend is misrepresenting the trinity and it seems you perhaps don't understand it.
He says that they show that Jesus was less than his Father, and was a separate person,
The Trinity teaches that Jesus is a separate person than the Father. You may not realize that.There are scriptures that show subordination of the Son to the Father. The Son is still shown to be equal to the Father.
- Matthew 24:36: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. My comment: He said that how come Jesus was sent by God, how could God send God?
Simple. Paul explains how Jesus' humanity took precedence before his resurrection in phil 2:6-8. He explains that even though in his very existence he is in the form of God he subjected himself to that form of a servant even subjecting himself to death on a cross. He did not use his divine power ever. He only performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. At the time he made that statement he did not know.
- John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent. My comment: He said that how come Jesus was sent by God, how could God send God?
I like said. Jesus is not the Father. Such scriptures refute oneness theology which states Jesus is the Father. They do not refute the trinity, they actually SUPPORT it.
this chapter explains that Jesus is God and the creator of All that is created. first-born simply means he is the pre-eminent one. Creation was not born it was created. First-born in the bible usually isn't talking an order in which they came forth it simply establishes one who is favored. This is a confirmation of his deity not a denial.- Colossians 1:15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Argument: How come Jesus was firstborn of every creature, that means that he is not eternal.
There are many statements in this scripture that seem contradictory unless properly applied. They don't only seem to contradict the deity of christ but many passages in the bible. It is actually not a contradiction of either but further revelation of what people have seen when they have seen God and confirmation of the trinity. This scripture is saying that Jesus has explained the Father. No one (man) has seen the very being of God or what God is. When they have seen God it has been a manifestation of the Son. People have seen God in the bible and what they have seen is a manifestation of the Son who is God. The important thing to take from this passage is the reference to the Unity of the Father and the Son. That is what the trinity teaches. 'in the bosom of the Father.' That establishes biblical unity.- John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Argument: How come no one has seen God, not even Jesus?
- Matthew 3:17: And lo a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Argument: How could God be talking to God?
You need to realize that the trinity does not teach that Jesus is the Father. The Father talks to his Son. This scripture once again refutes oneness theology and confirms trinitarian theology.
- 1 John 2:23: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Argument: Why are they shown as two separate entities?
Once again confirmation of the trinity and refutation of oneness. Jesus is a different person than the Father.
Argument: How come Jesus is saying that no one can come to the Father, but by him, if they are two separate persons.
huh?
- II Corinthians 1:3: Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Argument: Explain how God is Father of everything, including Jesus.
I dont get your point. Jesus is the Son of God. You should know that.
Argument: How come Jesus is asking God for it to be his Father's will, and not his, if Jesus is God?
The fact that Jesus is sweating blood should be a clue that he isnt thrilled about suffering a crucifixtion.
- Psalms 37:11: But the meek shall inherit the earth: and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. Argument: How come we believe in heaven if the bible says that the meek will inherit the earth?
Jesus taught in going to heaven as did the apostles. Revelation taught that heaven ultimately comes down to earth. Jesus said Abraham Isaac and Jacob would be in heaven. It is not that hard to figure out.
starscream---
the discrepancies are when JWs assume GOD is ONLY the FATHER. GOD is all three, all three are each GOD.
If you read the last two or three questions presented with the idea that JWs ONLY view the FATHER as GOD you can see where they are screwed up.
Ravyn
Read "When Jesus Became God." Once you see how this idea came into mainstream Christianity three hundred years after Christ, and how it had to be accepted under penalty of death, you will get the feeling that God had nothing to do with this.
The full deity of Jesus Christ was taught by the early church.
Not according to the "Church" that invented the Dogma: New Catholic Encyclopedia vol XIV, p299. "Not established....prior to the 4 th Century...."
Even McKenzie reports in the Bible Dictionary that the terms "Person" and "nature" are Greek philosophical terms that do not appear in the Bible. The Platonic Trinity has been the sole cause of Jewish and Muslim disparities in history against most so called "Christians" since the adoption of this farce and the "falling away."
They are one not in number, but one in unity. The Bible teaches the man and the woman (Gen.2:18-24) will become "one flesh", that is not literal but i in unity. The Bible teaches there is one body of Christ (1 Cor.12) yet many members. Just as a father, mother, and children are all one family but are distinct from one another
An example of early Christian literature dates from about 140. It is a rather whimsical book of visions described by Hermas, written in an attempt to stir up the Christians in Rome to greater spirituality. Although not part of the canon of Scripture, it was highly regarded by later writers such as Irenaeus. Here, possibly for the first time, we have the pre-existence of Christ firmly stated:
'The Son of God is far older than all his creation, so that he was the Father's counsellor in his creation'.
But the subordination of the Son to the Father, and his dependence on Him is not questioned. Jesus received the law 'from the Father', and 'received all power from his Father.
I won't try to argue the trinity part because I'm not sure where I stand myself on this issue. I believe it is a doctrine and can be argued either way using scriptures - at least, that's how far I've gotten in my own studies. It may be impossible for us to explain with our current understanding of living beings - for example, how could you explain to a person in 300BC that time and space can be manipulated by speed? Yet it's possible.
As for the paradise on earth - that one is fairly easy:
The old testament (Psalms) was written for the Jews prior to the Messiah's coming - at that time NOONE had the hope of a heavenly life, they only looked for the Messiah and a resurrection.
When Jesus came and was resurrected he opened the way to a heavenly hope. You will note that in the new testament there is no scripture that states that the dead are "unconscious" or anything like that - it always speaks of an afterlife.
As for the meek inheriting the earth - John answers this one at the end of Revelation. This is a scripture the JW's are very familiar with and yet seem to not really SEE - Revelation 21:3 "Now the dwelling of God is with men and he will live with them".....how will God live with men if he is in heaven and men are on earth??? Verse 2 tells us "I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God..." - if you read the entire chapter 21 it seems clear that EVERYONE will live on earth, including God. Verse 1 tells us that this is the "new heavens and earth".
Read Luke 16:19-31 and ask your friend to explain this one - if the dead are just DEAD then was Jesus lying about this?
BTW
about colosians 1:15.
I have recently given much thought to the matter. I see two main ways of explaining that scripture.
1. The JWs say it is calling Jesus the first thing God created because calls him the first born. Of course, that can't be what it is saying because then everthing created would be born and creation is from nothing. So firstborn is actually saying pre-eminent one as we already established.
2. The deity defenders say that it is saying he is the pre-eminent one or Lord of creation. Which I admit is a possibility.
3. I am seeing a third possibility and I think it is the more correct one. The "of creation" part is the key. The deity attackers contend it is still calling him part of the creation. The deity defenders resist this because to them it would contradict his deity.
Here is how I see it. The deity defenders are right on the pre-eminent one part. The deity attackers are sort of right about the of creation part. It is why they are right about the of creation part that both sides don't realize. It is only confirming his humanity as his becoming part of the creation. He is the pre-eminent one within the creation now that he has conquered death and is the anointed king by God.
I think that is the most likely although 2 is possible but 1 is no way.
So it still does not deny that he is deity, it confirms his humanity yet again. He is of all humans, the pre-eminent one. He is the human lord destined to reign over all.
