Posts by hooberus

89

Is Jesus Christ, Jehovah God? (Not the Father, but Equal to the Father)

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?

(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?

please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.

hooberus

That Jesus is fully God and yet also fully human and as such he is in submission to his God and yet he too is unequivocally God Almighty and above all things (apart from his God).
That contradiction.

Cofty, So many of your points are mere unsubstantiated assertions.

That someone who if fully and unequivocally God Almighty can also take on a human nature and become fully man as well is not contradictory.

Why does it become contradictory if, as a man, he submits to his parents and honors them? Why does it become contradictory if as a man he honors God the Father as his God as all men are supposed to do?

A contradiction occurs when a different position is taken on the exact same point. Such as:

There is only one God and there are many Gods.

Jesus is still a man and Jesus is not still a man.

Nothing that I have written here is contradictory.

To say that someone who is Almighty God COULD NOT also take on a human nature as well, and, as a man, honor the Father as his God is contradictory. What could the Almighty NOT do?

89

Is Jesus Christ, Jehovah God? (Not the Father, but Equal to the Father)

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?

(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?

please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.

hooberus

No I'm not at all. Your 'explanation' rests on a logical contradiction that compounds the problem.

What “logical contradiction”?

89

Is Jesus Christ, Jehovah God? (Not the Father, but Equal to the Father)

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?

(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?

please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.

hooberus

So cofty are you prepared to conceed that the scriptures stating that Jesus has a “God” do not necessarily disprove him from also being fully God.

89

Is Jesus Christ, Jehovah God? (Not the Father, but Equal to the Father)

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?

(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?

please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.

hooberus

Not really. All of the references I listed apart from one refer to Jesus after he was exalted to heaven. Hooby's answer implies that Jesus remains subject to the father who is his God.

Jesus in his exalted state is still a man in heaven. Therefore, the Father being his God is consistent with the Father being the God of all men (see previous post). It does not refute his being divine as well.

It is a contradiction to claim that a human can be equal to their god. Therefore the resurrected Jesus his God and Father are not equal.

Perhaps if someone were human only, then it would be a contradiction. But the scriptures teach that Jesus is both human and divine. In his divinity he is equal to the Father.

89

Is Jesus Christ, Jehovah God? (Not the Father, but Equal to the Father)

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?

(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?

please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.

hooberus

If Jesus is Jehovah then why did he refer to the Father as his "God"? Why are there scriptures that refer to the "God" of Jesus?

Christ referred to the Father as his God, because (after the incarnation) Jesus was (in addition to being divine) also fully human- and all humans are to honor the Father as their God. As Paul G. Weathers Contend for the faith (page. 141) states:

“Since Christ came as man, and since one of the proper duties of man is to worship, pray to, and adore [God], it was perfectly proper for Jesus to call the Father “my God” and to address him in prayer. Positionally speaking as a man, as a Jew, and as our high priest (“made like his brothers in every way,” Heb. 2:17), Jesus could address the Father as “God.”

"Although Jesus existed from eternity past as God (Micah 5:2, John 1:1, Heb. 1:10, 7:3, 13:8, Rev. 1:17, 2:8, 22:12-13), the Father is never referred to as the “God” of Jesus except in prophetic verses referring to the coming of Christ as a man and as our high priest (Rev. 3:12).”

Christ is both God and man.

291

Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty in

i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

hooberus

Nothing that I have written here (in context) shows an error regarding ‘ontological’ and ‘methodological’ naturalism.

The context of my statements refer specifically to the practice of evolutionists attempting to redefine ‘science’ to be a search for “naturalistic explanations.” Such a ‘definition’ preemptively excludes creation as a possible scientific explanation.

It is irrelevant if the evolutionist is also a proponent of ‘ontological naturalism’, or if they are just a proponent of the more limited ‘methodological naturalism’. The end result is the same as far as their philosophy of science goes.

To both, ‘science’ is the search for “naturalistic” explanations. Period.

291

Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty in

i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

hooberus

“Thor makes fire go”

Just because you don’t define science to exclude non naturalistic causes does not therefore mean that all non naturalistic statements must be considered as science.

In the same way defining science to not exclude naturalistic causes does not therefore mean that all naturalistic statements must be considered as science. For example : “Humans were formed from sea weed by unguided erosion over billions of years”.

291

Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty in

i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

hooberus

Quote Anders Anderson

“Anything supernatural is beyond investigation, and thus useless as a means to try and understand nature.”

Things found in nature can point to a cause outside of nature. Even if you can’t directly study the agent directly, you can infer the necessity of their being an intelligent outside cause.

Science should not be defined to exclude non natural causes from consideration for the origin of things found in nature.

Such a “definition” was not held by the founders of the modern fields of science, nor by many scientists today.

The word science comes from a word meaning ‘knowledge’ not ‘naturalistic’.

The fact that evolutionists want to define ‘science’ itself so as to exclude creation shows that they are hardy “unbiased” as they present themselves.

291

Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty in

i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

hooberus

Quote Anders Anderson

“That's the goal of all scientists in any field of science.”

Wrong. Archaeologists and geologists don’t limit themselves to strictly “naturalistic” explanations for things like the pyramids in Egypt. They don’t insist that only “natural” processes such as ‘wind’ and ‘earthquakes’ can be invoked for such complex sandstone structures.

The discoverer of genetics Mendel did not insist that only “naturalistic explanations” for the origins be considered. He was a creationist.

Likewise the founder of modern classification Linnaeus did not insist that the origins of the animals that he was classifying be limited to only “naturalistic explanations” He was a creationist.

Qutote Anders Anderson

“Nature is what we can perceive, measure, detect, and try to understand.”

Yes we can perceive, measure, detect, and try to understand things found in nature. However that does not mean that we must limit ourselves to only “naturalistic explanations” for the origins of the universe and things found in it.

291

Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty in

i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

hooberus

If you limit yourself only “naturalistic” explanations, then you are now committed to either random chance or some sort of evolutionary scheme (which can include random chance).

There are many “naturalistic” options available for evolutionists to “select” from. ReMine called this ‘Natural’ selection.

For example:

-Separate Ancestry (multiple biogenesis)

-Common Ancestry

-Lateral Transposition (can move a character across lineages)

-Convergence (The independent evolution of similar traits)

-Loss of Character

And many more!

-So let’s say cytochrome c was “identical” in all species. Evolutionists could “select” either Common Ancestry or Lateral Transposition “explain” the pattern. (They would then tell us that if it was created by a creator that it “should be random”, and use the odds against random chance as evidence for evolution. See my earlier posts on this thread).

-Let’s say instead that cytochrome c was “random” across all species. Evolutionists would have no problem. They would simply say it was randomized by mutations. (They would then say (as some already do that if it were created it “should be identical.”)

-Let’s say that human cytochrome c was identical to yeast and that chimp cytochrome c was identical to a lizzard. Evolutionists would attribute it to Lateral Transposition.

That evolutionists are willing to invoke such “explanations” is documented from their own writings (see the afore mentioned book).

Keep in mind that the evolutionists commitment to “naturalistic explanations” is a total commitment. So for them it’s just a process of finding the most plausible (least unlikely) naturalistic “explanation” that they can come up with, no matter how unlikely.