Please tell me it isnt true (page 2)

Eugene Shubert

NeonMadman wrote: "However, there are a few deviations in which you do approximate JW teaching. [Only one is listed.] You speak of the Father as "a God above" Jesus."

And that isn’t Biblical?

Jesus said,

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." Revelation 3:12.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Godhead

Latin assassin from Manhattan

Is it possible that the JWs have a secret society at the top of its' ranks? Is it possible that the leadership believes in a different set of truths, or that it has a different agenda than that of it's millions of followers?

NeonMadman

NeonMadman wrote: "However, there are a few deviations in which you do approximate JW teaching. [Only one is listed.] You speak of the Father as "a God above" Jesus."

And that isn’t Biblical?

Depends how you mean it, I guess. As I said before, it's a question of whether you mean that the Father is positionally greater or of a higher nature. The latter, I would disagree with, and that's probably why the phrase "a God above" Jesus makes me a bit uncomfortable.

As an example, you might refer to your boss as "the man above me" in the company you work for. But you mean only that he is above you in position. He is not more human than you are, or of a greater nature. Outside of work, you are equals. But for functional purposes, on the job, he is "above" or "greater than" you.

So, if by "a God above" you mean that the Father holds a superior position to Jesus with regard to functional matters, I would agree, even though I probably wouldn't use those words myself. If, on the other hand, you mean that Jesus is some sort of "lesser god," inferior to the Father by nature, I would strongly disagree. The wording you use brings the latter to my mind, I guess that's why I'm uncomfortable with it.

Again, I recommend The Forgotten Trinity, in which Dr. White explains nicely the matter of Jesus' referring to the Father as "My God."

As to my saying that there were "a few deviations" and then listing only one: When I started writing the post, I had intended to address the questions of "a God above" and John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I am) separately, but ended up commenting on the two related issues simultaneously.

Simon

Eugene Shubert

Welcome to the forum ... but please don't repeat links etc. in every post you make.

badolputtytat

Hi Eugene,

Dont take this as confrontational... when it comes to "religion" I am a very "to the point" type person. So first, welcome again.

But you have answered my question, with a question, and you have posted a link to this site on each of your posts wich tells me that you have more in mind than simply "getting an opinion" on it. But you asked so here it is:

I notice that you have many many scriptures listed, in a particular order. As with most "religions". Also you have links at the bottom of this page that suggest that I should "come to you". Upon following these links, I find that it is no longer a statement of what YOU believe... but rather what "WE" believe.You also make the statement that the scriptures need to be "interpreted" by 'us'. Keeping in mind your list of scriptures arranged neatly in a particular order, to make a statement.

Now... once I get to the WE part... I also see on the same home page, a link to the "Fear tactic"(the terrorist attacks), a promise of destruction if I am not "obedient". Also a definition of Faith, and with that definition, the idea that I cannot have this faith "of my own merit"...suggesting that I NEED someone (wonder who?) to show it to me.

Please dont take me wrong... had you introduced yourself and said "I would like to discuss god with you" it would be a little different MAYBE.... but busting out of the doors with fear tactics, and the idea that I am in-capable of having faith "on my own" tells me one thing.... The answer to your original question....

and that is can I "contrast your perspective in terms of JW belief"...

answer: no. There is no contrast. You seem to be right there with them. I DO however respect your beliefs, if that is what YOU believe. I do not believe that any two people can "believe" in a list of doctrines. You can memorize them, practice them, and quote them.... you cannot BELIEVE them.

I find the site well structured and written. You are obviously an articulate person. But, I have to say that after having been raised a JW.... It would take a little more than that to "convince" me. The fear tactics and belief that "we are not worthy to seek god on our own" are out-dated, misguided, and a way to gain control over the mind. I would love to discuss spirtuality and your Idea of God with you... Discuss WITH you... not be preached to, or as you can see... NOT be intimidated. But my in-box is always open.

Have a nice day. Hope you stick around the site.

Kenneson

Compare Rev. 3:12 with Rev. 21:22, 23 and 22:3,4. Is the Son less significant than the Father?

Eugene Shubert

NeonMadman wrote: "However, there are a few deviations in which you do approximate JW teaching. [Only one is listed.] You speak of the Father as "a God above" Jesus."

And that isn’t Biblical?

Depends how you mean it, I guess. As I said before, it's a question of whether you mean that the Father is positionally greater or of a higher nature.

I thought I answered that at my web site, where I recount an unusual event.

I knew from my mathematical training that mathematicians have a whole discipline called set theory where it’s proven that infinities come in different sizes. (The size of an infinite set is a special rank called a cardinal number). I thought that the Father would rank like the set of all sets. (This object is so indescribable that all the rules of logic break down). Jesus could easily be infinite, not equal to the Father, and have an understandable rank like one of the infinite cardinal numbers. I then received an unusually strong flash of insight. The Father knows the end from the beginning but the Son only knows all possible futures with perfect comprehension plus all that the Father reveals to Him. I then remembered Revelation 1:1:

Quote:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. Rev 1:1.

Eugene Shubert

Simon,

I know what is ruining the table in my previous message. I copied and pasted the Rev 1:1 quote from a word document and I’m sure that its formatting is interfering with the page table code. If you can edit my last message, try deleting the Rev 1:1 quote. Then, copy the following and then make it a quote.

(It goes last):

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. Rev 1:1.

If that fixes it, please delete this message also.

Thanks.

Simon

s'ok ... it happens sometimes when just part of a table is copied.

I'll fix it one day

("... and then the end will come" LOL)

Kenneson

Eugene,

So is the relationship of the Father and the Son a mathematical one?

The Father gave the Son all authority (Matt. 28:18) and all revelation (Rev. 1:1). So what does the Father possess that the Son doesn't also?

Please tell me it isnt true

Share this

Please tell me it isnt true