Posts by Mondo1

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

There are a number of New Testament passages that make it clear that it is the "Father" that is the God within the Old Testament. Already Hebrews 1:1-2 has been discussed. We see that "the God" that "spoke by the prophets" was the Father, not the Son. For in Hebrews 1 we read of "the God" that did this and in verse 2 we read of the son of that God.

Let us consider Hebrews 3:4-5: "For every house is built by someone; but He who built all things is God. And "Moses" truly "was faithful in all his house" as a ministering servant, for a testimony of the things having been spoken; "

God built everything and Moses was "faithful in all his house." This text is quote from Numbers 12:7, where God states: "It is not so with My servant Moses! He is faithful in all My house." Going back to Hebrews 3, we can continue into verse 6: "but Christ as Son over His house, whose house we are, if truly we hold fast the boldness and rejoicing of the hope firm to the end." Christ was not the God who possessed the house, who was speaking in Num. 12:7, but the Son of that God.

Also, Acts 3:15, which quotes from Exodus 3:15, refering to the God that spoke in that text. We are there told that Jesus is "his servant," which is the servant of the God that spoke in Exodus 3:15, not that God himself or a person of that God.

Further, Acts 3:25-26, which quotes God speaking to Abraham in Genesis 22:18. We see that Jesus isn't that God or a person of that God, because we read of that God who spoke there, and again Jesus is said to be that one's servant. Acts 5:30-31 supports this too, also referencing that text.

Finally, we might consider Jesus' words of John 8:54. "Jesus answered, If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, whom you say is your God."

The God of the Jews, the God of the Old Testament, according to Jesus, was not a Trinity or Jesus himself, but that one was his Father. He is the God of the Old Testament, the Jehovah who alone is the most high. (Psa. 83:18)

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

Lilly, Would it satisfy you if I could give you a couple of examples of where "God" appears and it can be shown conclusively in those specific cases that it is not Jesus? If so, I will be happy to do as much. Please let me know. Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

BelieverinJesus,

You wrote:

===============================
I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God, and at the same time Jesus is God. By using the NIV, KJV, NAS, and NLT I am overly abundantly convinced that Jesus Christ is God. That's VERY important. Even using the NWT, which has been changed to take away the deity of christ, you can still see who Jesus is. There are many points I'd like to make. First being in Genesis 1:1-4...this explains that God created everything. Then in John 1:1-4 it explains that God is Jesus, and Jesus who is God created everything.
=========================

The NWT doesn't "change" anything simply because it doesn't agree with those other translations. Just about any passage of Greek can be translated in various ways. Context plays a role in how we choose to translate it. Even if we accept that though, that does not make Jesus Almighty God any more than the fact that the Jewish king is spoken of as "God" in Psalm 45:6. The Greek and Hebrew words translated as "god" carry with them different senses.

Further, John 1:4 does not tell us that Jesus created everything, but it tells us that God created "through" Jesus. There is a difference. It is clearly shown in the Greek.

================
Along with his attributes are identical to God, They both forgive sin, they both give life, they both control the water's with their word. Jesus say's "....I AM" when asked who he is. God is called " I AM" God is also called "The alpha and the omega." Jesus is also called that in the book of revelation. God also tells us to not worship anybody or any idol apart from him. Jesus accepts worship when he triumphantly enters Jeresulam and when he is resurrected and with the disciples. The disciples worship him. He doesn't stop him.
================

The words "I am" are nothing significant. Jesus uses those words in normal speech. Others use them as well, included the blind man in John 9:9 and others. Jesus is in fact not called "the alpha and the omega," though he is called "the first and the last," though he is called such as "the one who became dead and is alive forevermore." Which means that he is the first and the last in the resurrection.

As for worship, Jesus indeed receives it, but he receives it because God exalted him, not because he is God. This is explicitly defined in Phil. 2:9-11. It does not contradict God's command not to worship others, part of the Old Testament law that we are not under, because God is the one that commands that Jesus receives it. (Heb. 1:6)

=====================
God also say's all other god's are valueless in Isaiah. So wouldn't that make the watch towers NWT bible contradictory what they have written in the NWT John 1:1 saying "the word was "a" God." Wouldn't that make Jesus valueless? The NWT is pathetic! I've even learned some basic Greek and can see the flaws in the NWT. What a shame.
=====================

Actually, in the context of Isaiah's statement, he is speaking of idols. You cannot take texts out of context and get a proper meaning, and this is exactly what you have done with your claim about Isaiah It has nothing to do with Jesus. The NWT is not pathetic and obviously your "basic Greek" is failing you, for if you knew more than "basic Greek" you would know that the NWT is perfectly acceptable in rendering John 1:1c as "a god," which has a syntax that parallels Acts 28:4 with "a murderer."

Mondo

36

Street Witnessing in Conyers, GA (rather long, but IMO cool experience)

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.

my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.

read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.

Mondo1

Alan,

I already started to go into this with him and he made it clear that he was not making an argument about what the Bible actually says, but based upon the NWT's addition of the bracketed "[true]" when translating ha'elohim in the OT. So his argument is not a Biblical one, but more on to just try and trick somebody up.

23

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 in the NWT

by Zico in

5 for the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

10 all that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in she ol, the place to which you are going.

as i'm sure you know, the society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all.

Mondo1

I think that you are taking the two as mutually exclusive. Get the most out of life now, yes, but doing so in the service of God, as we see in chapter 12. His argument is not completed in chapter 9, but it is only a portion of it.

36

Street Witnessing in Conyers, GA (rather long, but IMO cool experience)

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.

my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.

read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.

Mondo1

Forgive me Auldsoul, I thought you were trying to make a Biblical argument. Definitely a misunderstanding on my part!

23

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 in the NWT

by Zico in

5 for the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

10 all that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in she ol, the place to which you are going.

as i'm sure you know, the society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all.

Mondo1

I am not saying that it was the focus of his discussion, but rather that he does not rule it out. His point, in context, is to get the most out of the current life for in death there is nothing. His point is not impacted by the thought of a future resurrection or lack thereof.

23

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 in the NWT

by Zico in

5 for the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

10 all that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in she ol, the place to which you are going.

as i'm sure you know, the society always use this scripture as proof that the bible teaches that those who die have no mind at all.

Mondo1

Not at all JWtruth, for the very fact that OLAM is used rules that out. They have no portion in what is done under the son "to the age" which is the kingdom. Within the present age the statement is absolutely true, but it is in "the age to come" that Scripture speaks of when they will be resurrected. The Scripture is entirely accurate. I have saw that argument before in David Reed's JW book and couldn't understand how anyone actually thought that it would hold up. The NWT uses "time indefinite," but for some reason people think that "time indefinite" = "eternity." It can denote it, but often does not.

36

Street Witnessing in Conyers, GA (rather long, but IMO cool experience)

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.

my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.

read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.

Mondo1

V,

I would argue that such is highly subjective. I'd just assume let this issue die though as it is something highly subjective. If you really feel we should go forward with it I will, but I just don't see anything constructive coming from it.

36

Street Witnessing in Conyers, GA (rather long, but IMO cool experience)

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

this is a long experience, i am trying to get it down while still fresh in mind.

my hope is that some might be aided in their approach to jws by reading this, but i dunno.

read if you want to, don't read if you don't want to, and that way you'll have no business being annoyed by my having posted it.

Mondo1

Auldsoul,

That is rather inconsistent, for you are turning to the Greek word qeos. You would seem to want to be consistent. If you are going to refer to Christ in the Greek as "god" you should then relate how he is in Greek as "true." To argue based upon a bracketed addition of true in an English Bible does not justify your assertion and only shows that it is not a Scriptural distinction.

You may not realize it, but even in contrast to idols, they are not spoken of as "false gods" in the sense of Jehovah as the "true God." They are considered based upon him, where he is the model upon which they were created by their makers, for he is God of all. He is the archetype upon which they are designed and so even with the idols the comparison isn't entirely proper in any example that I have been able to find. In the NT and LXX it is always AHQINOS in every example that I can find.

As for Isaiah 45, you have removed that Scripture completely from context, for it refers clearly to the idols of the nation when in context, having no bearing on others. Would you just as well go into Exodus 20:8 and say we cannot have art by removing it from its context?

For Psalm 8:5, elohim does not mean angels. "Angels" is a rendering based upon the LXX and is by no means a *meaning* of Elohim. Please do not confuse application with meaning. Here it is applied to angels but the word itself does not mean it. Glosses will note the application to them, but Hebrew lexicons do not argue for that meaning.

In Exodus 7:1 you are right that Moses is not "God" but the LXX makes it very clear that he is "a god to Pharaoh." This not not merely metaphorical, but it describes a role that Moses held to him and a role that Aaron held.

And finally for Psa. 82:6, they indeed are not gods in the worship sense as idols are, but they are to be honored and respected, for they are gods because they have been given a position of authority by God. The sense varies, but it still does not change the fact that properly they are called gods.

So in contrast what you said, these ones are properly called gods. They are not false gods, but they are gods positively. Psa. 82:6 confirms this especially, for in parallel to being "gods" they are "sons of the most high," a positive expression.

I'm calling you out on this argument not because of what the Watchtower says, but because of what the Bible says, so if you're going to make an argument, a Watchtower quote is not going to phase me and it is not going to make your argument true or false. The fact is, the Biblical use of "true" with respects God in contrast to Jesus does not support the position that you are arguing for. One could argue *at most* that it is an implication, but in light of who it is applied to, that would be false.