jonathan dough
JoinedPosts by jonathan dough
-
106
Russian JWs in Serious Trouble - about to be banned
by Dogpatch inalthough it has been leading up to this for a long time, it appears russia has made up their mind to get rid of "extremist" groups by banning them, and jws are pretty much at the top of the list.
the last few years under putin they have been giving them heaps of trouble.. .
i am not for bans as it usually backfires, but under the "new" admnistration it looks like hard-core responses are in order.
-
-
-
304
is jesus a god?
by javig inhi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?
another god?
is him jesus?...
-
-
jonathan dough
But I have always believed Jesus and God were two separate people.
Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus, the creature, the man of the God-man Jesus, was not the Almighty, and in that sense they were separate.
-
304
is jesus a god?
by javig inhi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?
another god?
is him jesus?...
-
-
jonathan dough
The divinity of Christ the Son, that he was consubstantial or of the same essence as the Father, was formally acknowledged at Nicaea I in the 4th century. The decision was in great part a response to the flourishing heresy of Arianism which saw in Christ no more than a creature, a special god-like individual, subordinate to God Almighty in every way at all times. At the very core of Nicaea I was the council’s belief in the inescapable Biblical conclusion that Christ the Word was, and is, God. Church doctrine evolved from, and revolved around, this fundamental Scriptural truth. And central to this thought was John 1:1 which in part states in plain language that “The Word was God” (Green’s Literal Translation, NAB, RSV, NKJV).
The Jehovah's Witnesses and others, reflecting Arian Subordinationism, interpret John 1:1 differently. The Jehovah's Witnesses’ New World Translation Bible reads: “and the Word was a god.” A distinct minority of other translations conveying the same general idea read: “and the Word was divine” (The Bible - An American Translation, 1935), or “and godlike kind was the Logos” (Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978).
The Jehovah's Witnesses base their interpretation “the Word was a god” on a) rules of grammar, and b) the overall context of the Bible. Basically, they argue that even though a literal translation does not include the indefinite article “a” before God, it can and should be inserted, depending upon the context (Should You Believe, Chapter 9), even though a literal Greek rendering is “and God was the Word” or in English “and the Word was God,” (ibid., Chapter 10; Reasoning, 416, 417).
Strong and Vine’s vehemently disagrees with this grammatical assessment.
(4) Theos is used (4a) with the definite article, (4b) without (i.e., as an anarthrous noun). (4c) The English may or may not have need of the article in translation. But that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Acts 27:23 (“of [the] God whose I am,”) the article points out the special God whose Paul is and is to be preserved in English. In the very next verse (ho theos) we in English do not need the article, (4c) John 1:1 As to this latter it is usual to employ the article with a proper name, when mentioned a second time. (4c) There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun.
(4c1) A notable instance of this is in Jn 1:1, “and the Word was God”; here a double stress is on theos by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, “a god was the Word” is entirely misleading. Moreover, that “the Word” is the subject of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is amorphous (without the article).
In other words, the absence of “a” in “a god” lays a double stress on and emphasizes theos so that it should read “God,” ie., “and the Word was God.”
Interestingly, in time the church fathers’ overriding struggle was with the question of the humanity of Christ, i.e., how could God the Son be truly human, not His divinity. The Jehovah's Witnesses take the opposite view, seeing Christ as only a man while assailing his divinity. Of course the real reason the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ and reduce Him to “a god” is the context of the entire Bible, or more precisely, their notion of their Bible’s context (Should You Believe, Chapter 9). One hears that quite often.
-
304
is jesus a god?
by javig inhi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?
another god?
is him jesus?...
-
-
jonathan dough
If Jesus was praying to his Father than he couldn't have been God. Jesus even said he HAD a God. John20:17
You're not paying attention. As I said, contrary to what you have been taught, incorrectly, Trinitarians (Christians) do not teach that Jesus the creature is the Almighty. This is basic Christian teaching. Jesus was and is God-man. It was the man who was praying to the Father, not God praying to God. If you're serious about understanding this try putting just a little effort into reading something besides the material they provide you because most of that is wrong. You've been mislead about what the doctrine teaches. If you just want to repeat what they tell you to repeat without applying your ability to reason, then skip this post. But you're only fooling yourself. You need to peel the onion back and dig down through the layers. It's not complicated.
It's all right here in detail: http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#1
Intro to the above.
“The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God, who exists in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three persons share the one divine nature. They are equal, co-eternal and omnipotent. They are distinct from one another: The Father has no source, the Son is born of the substance of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father (or from the Father and the Son). Though distinct, the three persons cannot be divided from one another in being or in operation (Oxford Dictionary of the Bible [New York, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2005] 1207) (Oxford). With minor changes, the reformed Protestant churches have essentially adapted the Catholic teachings on the Trinity Doctrine (see section 12).
Central to the doctrine that God is three Persons in one nature is the premise that “Jesus is God,” a term which causes great confusion among the Jehovah’s Witnesses who unfortunately do not understand what is meant by this Trinitarian phrase or what the Trinity doctrine teaches. One of their more bizarre errors lies in believing that Christ is a created angel who became man and after the resurrection reverted back to being an angel.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have published countless pages of criticism of Christian Trinitarianism, teaching that it is the work of Satan and utterly illogical. This relentless attack, however, is based upon certain misconceptions and falsehoods allowing them to capitalize on many unsuspecting individuals’ ignorance of accurate Trinity dogma.Three of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ false teachings are particularly misleading and form the core vehicle for the dissemination of gross distortions.
First, they do not understand that a "Person" is not a material human being like you or I. Persons of the Trinity are spirit. Secondly, they do not understand that God is "three" in one sense, and "one" in a completey different sense. And third, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are unwilling or unable to acknowledge or grasp the concept of the hypostatic union, the union that is the God-man Jesus, who is fully God the Son and fully man, a divine Person who assumed a human nature. Intertwined with this concept is the often ignored principle that the created humanity of Jesus is not God. Accordingly, Jesus, the man in the God-man equation, could pray to His Father and acknowledge His Father’s superiority without committing any doctrinal contradictions. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, teach that the incarnate Jesus was nothing more or less than a man.This treatise begins by shining a light on the worst of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ misunderstandings, and goes on to explain in greater detail what the Trinity doctrine actually teaches. From there, many of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity are disposed of in light of more accurate teaching, after which a further examination is made of scriptural support for the Trinity in the Bible.
A major section is then devoted to select Bible verses that prove that Jesus was, and is, God, followed by a brief summary of early Trinitarian theology which provides us with a better understanding of the doctrine’s foundation. The concluding section is devoted to the issue of Jesus Christ being a created angel.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose religion is essentially 4th century Arian Subordinationism (see section 41) have said many things about the doctrine of the Trinity that are simply not true. Out of a sense of common decency and respect, those who propound and believe in the doctrine and people who seek to understand it better are entitled at a minimum to a fair hearing on the issues, which is the primary goal of this work.
But before you begin, it is very important to understand two simple concepts which lie at the heart of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ errors; the difference between immanent Trinity and economic Trinity, and how their religion has commingled them resulting in untold confusion.
-
304
is jesus a god?
by javig inhi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?
another god?
is him jesus?...
-
-
jonathan dough
WHO DID JESUS PRAY TO WHEN HE WAS ON EARTH?
Jesus, the creature, the created humanity, the man of the God-man hypostatic union who is not the Almighty, was praying to his Father.
Start here if you want to learn.
-
304
is jesus a god?
by javig inhi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?
another god?
is him jesus?...
-
-
jonathan dough
Even some Catholics are rejecting the Trinity doctrine now
Many will fall away from the truth. Following your logic then, persons who reject the WT teaching are right because they rejected their doctrines. You want to dig a bit deeper here.
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#21
21) Phillip said to Jesus, "Show us the Father" - (John 14:8-10)[Top]
One of Christ’s most emphatic declarations that he was, and is, God, is found at John 14:8-10.Phillip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?”
Any claim by the Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus thought of himself here as nothing more than a man is absurd. Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have meant this because Jesus could be seen but God is an invisible spirit and no one has seen God at any time. Therefore Jesus could not be God. But again they fail to understand the two-fold nature of the divine person of Christ, the hypostatic union, and the indwelling of the Persons of the Trinity (see section 5). It is not the created humanity of Christ that is the Father. Jesus was referring to the divine person who assumed a human nature when He answered Phillip, and in this Person dwelt the fullness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9).
-
25
Just read one of them 'apocryphal books'
by sd-7 indudes.
dudettes.
apostates and loyalists alike.
-
-
jonathan dough
Catholic New American Bible (NAB) with vast notes and info. Cheap paperback addition. Don't always agree with their translation, but you'll never look at Christianity the same reading this book and the accompanying notes.
Contains ie. Tobit, Baruch, 1 and 2 Macabees, Wisdom and Sirach....
-
304
is jesus a god?
by javig inhi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?
another god?
is him jesus?...
-
-
jonathan dough
John means to convey that the Word has the same NATURE as God.
Sd-7,
And does that mean that the Angels or not the same NATURE as God? They appear before God as well like the Word did. And instead of saying that John means to convey something about the NATURE of God, could it be that John was simply conveying the fact that the Word was being made God to the human race he created as the verses were provided for them? He was given authority over the human race and would be shown by John as looking out for it. That is after all what John is talking about when he traced our life back to its source and completed the genealogy lists given in Matt. And Luke. And his disciples acknowledged this fact, Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God which in verse 31 explained that such use meant the Christ the Son of God. This human Son standing before Thomas, the way Adam should have been if he did not sin. So does this make two God’s when the authority that God has is passed to another to perform this task for him? No! Why! Because the title God is not a personal identity. Applying this word to someone else like the WORD that was with God does not make them the Supreme Being. Heavy use of it to the Supreme Being tends to make us think that it does but the word God can be used of others without making two God’s or another Supreme Being. In fact since it was used for Moses. the Kings of Israel, Judges of Israel, and even the Devil, and we do not think of them as the Supreme Being our Lord could use it in his defense when they tried to stone him. If we believe the scriptures that teach that there is only one God, Jas 2:19 “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” well then maybe it is time to rethink such other uses of this word in scripture that do not violate this truth. We do not step on one truth to make another because of such use of this word in the text. To put it another way: 2Jo 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. You see that is another truth that does not support the concept to three persons needed to make up this one God.
Joseph
This is completely false and they know it. Very few so-called Christians believe this, a tiny fraction, so don't be mislead. The Trinity doctrine is very logical and well thought out. The problem with the JWs, and it's a big one, is they don't think very deeply about these things. Very superficial arguments. If you lack a formal education they will take advantage of you. They are not Bible scholars in the real meaning of the word. They don't even come close when you compare their theology with the great Christian theologians of the past 2,000 years.
Go here and spend a little time understanding that "a god" is a false interpretation. Jesus was, and is, God. More specifically God-man.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#29
The fullness of the Godhead dwells inseparably in Jesus - (Colossians 2:9); He is the very imprint of God’s being - (Hebrews 1:3)
Colossians 2:9 is convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ. It states of Christ that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Green’s Literal Translation). The Greek word for “Godhead” is theotes and means divinity. It “stresses deity, the state of being God (Strong and Vine’s, 115). It is to be distinguished from theiotes which refers to the attributes of God, his divine nature and properties and it is this definition which the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly attach to Col 2:9 when they claim that the Godhead there merely refers to His “divine qualities” (Reasoning, 420). This is manifestly incorrect according to Strong and Vine’s, and what the Jehovah's Witnesses are actually doing is swapping theiotes for theotes. Regarding the Godhead (theotes) at Colossians 2:9:
In Col 2:9, Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son. Theotes indicates the divine essence of Godhood, the personality of God; (Strong and Vines, 114). [Theotes] stresses deity, the state of being God. (ibid, 115).
(Theiotes, on the other hand), … refers to the attributes of God, His divine nature and properties. (Strong and Vine’s, 114)
The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that “[b]eing truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than humans are coequal or all the same age just because they share humanity or human nature” (Reasoning, 421). But that is not necessarily true. If all persons share humanity it does make them all human, and they are all equally “human.” One person is not more or less human than another. So, if the inevitability of death is one aspect of humanity, then all humans die, all are mortal; they are equal in that regard. Similarly, if divinity inherently includes an eternal nature, and Jesus and God are divine, of the same essence (consubstantial), then both are eternal.
Actually, the Jehovah's Witnesses’ comparison of Jesus with all humans who share humanity is another flawed analogy because Jesus doesn’t share God at all like humans have a share in humanity. Jesus is fully God, and not somehow made God by virtue of the hypostatic union.
At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be “the very imprint of His (God’s) being” (NAB) (“the very stamp of his nature” (RS) (“the express image of His substance” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). The Greek word used here for image, stamp or imprint is charaktar and means an exact copy or representation, and stresses complete, not partial, similarity of essence.
(2) In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as “the express image of His substance.” The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the imprint. The Son of God is not merely his “image” (His character), He is the “image” or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses. (Strong and Vine’s, 269)
Accordingly, such equality applies to His eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscient nature, as God and the Word are literally equal to each other with respect to their essential being.
-
106
Russian JWs in Serious Trouble - about to be banned
by Dogpatch inalthough it has been leading up to this for a long time, it appears russia has made up their mind to get rid of "extremist" groups by banning them, and jws are pretty much at the top of the list.
the last few years under putin they have been giving them heaps of trouble.. .
i am not for bans as it usually backfires, but under the "new" admnistration it looks like hard-core responses are in order.
-
-
jonathan dough
I can respect that without calling you "no better than [the Nazis]" or a facist or a communist.
I'm referring to your view that this particular religion should be banned outright. Name calling? I'm equating your belief that the WTS should not exist with the facists and communists' identical views. If that is name calling, then so be it.
Nobody is suggesting banning the individuals their rights. The ban is against the evil organization.
Utter nonsense. You can't separate the two. You ARE banning individuals their rights if you ban their religion outright.
Government would not let a corporation sell literal poison to the public,
Try spending some time listening to right-wing talk radio. You want to hear poison? Hate speech? When is the last time you tried to shut them down?
so we are free to debate and take sides on whether government should let people sell clear mind poison to people.
I support your right. Debate away. That is the thrust of what I have been saying. Just don't deny the JWs that same right which you would do if you eliminated them as a religion.
-
106
Russian JWs in Serious Trouble - about to be banned
by Dogpatch inalthough it has been leading up to this for a long time, it appears russia has made up their mind to get rid of "extremist" groups by banning them, and jws are pretty much at the top of the list.
the last few years under putin they have been giving them heaps of trouble.. .
i am not for bans as it usually backfires, but under the "new" admnistration it looks like hard-core responses are in order.
-
-
jonathan dough
but it would be another thing to say that they have the right to sell pamphlets and books door-to-door that spout hatred and make millions of dollars on the backs of their "volunteers" and do it all tax-free.
But that's the way the system is set up. If you have a problem with that then write your legislator and see how far that will get you in changing the rules.
You compare me to the Nazis because I see that government is responsible for safety and should have the power to do something. You don't want to debate, you just subscribe to an anarchy that everyone is free to do what they think is best.
I don't know where you get that from. Anarchy? I'm defending the first amendment and other constitutionally protected rights. Nowhere did I say or can it be implied that there should be no rules. That is utter nonsense. Anarchy is a big word. Of course there is a time and place for government intervention, I even pointed that out. There is no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But we're talking about banning a religion outright. THAT is the Nazi MINDSET, and safety is their justification. And that is the issue of our discussion.
If you support their "right" to say what they say, you should equally support my right to call for a ban, but just argue against the ban itself without resorting to attacking me.
Obviously you aren't reading my post carefully because I said the exact opposite. I specifically support your right to call for a ban. Absolutely. Call for it. That is your right protected by the Bill of Rights. You just happen to be dead wrong and in this country, and among Americans who value our freedoms, banning religions outright is the stuff of dictatorships, facism, communism and other nefarious groups. I never accused you of stuffing Jews in the ovens. And don't regard all criticism of you as an attack on you personally because it isn't. I'm criticising your views.