i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
It's not "only begotten god" but "only begotten son." To be begotten implies and origin which is implied in Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
your reply ignores both the content and context of the verse. You are incapable of focusing on the exact content of the verses. I don't recall calling anyone an idiot.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
What you’ve written condenses to “It can’t be that way because I do not want it to be that way.” You seem to think that extended verbiage, regardless of the logic flaws, will provide some sort of refutation. You’re not alone; it’s a fairly common problem among expositors, especially Trinitarians. H. L. Baugher, a professor at Pennsylvania College, acknowledging that many translators found the passage ‘difficult,’ wrote:
“The scope of the whole passage (in Philippians) from ver. 6 to ver. 11 includes all three states of the one person spoken of, pre-incarnate, incarnate, and glorified. He "took upon him the form of a servant," but evidently was in some other form before this, and that is called in verse 6 ‘the form of God,’ and after this he was ‘highly exalted’ to a Kingship, which he did not have before” – Lutheran Quarterly, 1/78, p 120
This is clearly a non-Trinitarian statement. Yet, Baugher turned it all into a Trinitarian statement in his next words. That aside, what really is the context of Philippians 2:6? Paul wrote from house arrest, relaying the more positive aspects of his imprisonment. Rome was a theocratic state with the Emperor worshipped as god. In the Christian view this was an usurpation, a ‘grasping’ at what did not belong to him. It mirrored Satan’s rebellion.
Paul’s words set up a contrast everyone in the Philippi Church would have grasped without a further prompt. Jesus was not like the emperors who grasped at divine status they did not have. In that light Jesus is not changing from God as spirit to God in the flesh. In fact the verses do not call him god at all. It says he subsisted (vnaрxov) “in the form of God.” We have no way of knowing what God’s form is, but we can understand much about it. Jesus defined God as a spirit. John tells us we do not know what that is like, but tells us that “Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.” (I John 3:2) God created his angels as spirits. (Hebrews 1:7) These and similar scriptures indicates the ‘form of God’ to be spirit.
John one, often used by Trinitarians to support their argument, says exactly what we observe above. Jesus was God ... became flesh. John does not point to Jesus godhood, his identity, but to his nature. He like God was a spirit, in God’s form. Some translators note this by having it “what God was the word was.” John continues (in verse 18) “No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NSAV) This does not define Jesus as God, but as his son and as the one who explains God. Many saw Jesus. No one has seen God at any time. Jesus is thus not God.
Returning to Philippians: The word μορφῇ (form) is further explained for us in other verses. At Colosians 1:15 Jesus is called “the image (eixór) of the invisible God,” and, at 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Hebrews 1:3, “the brightness (reflection, effulgence) of God's glory, and the express image (impress, stamp) of God’s substance. (τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ)” Note that Hebrews 1:3 focuses on what God is as a spirit and not who he is as a person.
I’ve fallen into your unfortunate pattern of writing a book to make a point. Yet, observe this: Although he was "in the form of God," that he "emptied himself” of this glory by assuming the contrasted "form of a servant" and being made "in the likeness of men." He laid aside God's likeness to take up man's likeness. Again, this speaks of Christ’s nature as a spirit as was God.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
AND you wrote:
"The statement that Jesus was "made perfect" (Hebrews 5:9) does not imply that He was imperfect in His divine nature. Instead, it refers to His human nature being perfected through the fulfillment of His mission, culminating in His sacrificial death and resurrection."
Human nature or divine nature, in some sense Christ needed to be perfected. That's never true of Jehovah/Yahweh who is perfect in every sense at every instant. Even by your definition Christ had to be perfected in some sense. That implies the possibility of failure. God cannot fail.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Additionally you write:
"Jesus is both God and the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). His priesthood is not a sign of inferiority but a function of His role in the economy of salvation. He mediates as the God-man, fully God and fully man, reconciling humanity to God through His sacrificial death."
This is nonsense. A mediator stands outside the parties to a covenant, in the context of I Tim 2, the New Covenant. If God meant to institute an unilateral covenant, there would be no mediator. The only example of a unilateral covenant is in Genesis made between Jehovah and Abraham. There is no mediator but an obligation God placed on himself. The New Covenant has a mediator, Jesus, who in the pattern of the Old Covenant stands between the two parties. You have repeated Catholic theology, but you've done violence to the plain meaning of scripture.
You ignore the writer of Hebrews' plain words and intent to overlay it with your theology. Is your grasp on Catholic heresy so desperate that you cannot rely on the plain meaning of Paul's (or whom ever the writer was) words?
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Your are in error from the first statement. You wrote:
"Philippians 2:6-8 explains that Jesus, though being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant and being made in human likeness."
There is no thought of exploitation. Instead the Greek word means repine, to steal, an attempt to attain something that did not belong to him.
If you would let the Bible speak for itself instead of cutting and pasting Catholic theology, you'd do better.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
(Hebrews 5:1-10) 5 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed [If Jesus is God co-equal with the father he would not be 'appointed' but assume the office in his own right. A priest is an intercessor, not the God he serves.] in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal compassionately with the ignorant and erring ones, since he too is confronted with his own weakness, [God in what ever form he has is not weak in any sense. Neither does he learn from weakness.] 3 and because of that he must make offerings for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: [Jesus was glorified in the same way as Aaron. A lesser is raised/glorified by the greater] “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.” 7 During his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, [Jesus prayed. God does not pray to himself. God's servants pray to him. Isaiah calls Jesus his servant. A Servant is not greater than his master, but less.] to the One who was able to save him out of death, [One needing salvation is less than and dependent on the one providing it.] and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. [εὐλαβείας "godly fear" is variously translated "worship" and "reverence." God does not worship himself.] 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. [To whom was Jesus obedient? He was obedient to God. Obedience to God is worship. The lesser worships the greater. And in what sense does God learn anything. Everything is already within his intellectual grasp] ]9 And after he had been made perfect, [In what ever way Jesus was 'made perfect' he was in some sense not perfect or complete. That could not be said of God.] he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been designated by God [Note: By God. Not by himself. Not a self-designation] a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.[A priest is never the God he serves.]
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
I see the Catholic troll has struck again.
perhaps we could post the pictures the wt have presented in their literature that depict their version of paradise here for comment/discussion:.
from: spirits of the dead—can they help you or harm you?
do they really exist?.
Polar bears are named such because of their preferred environment. And it isn't in mid summer as in this picture.
perhaps we could post the pictures the wt have presented in their literature that depict their version of paradise here for comment/discussion:.
from: spirits of the dead—can they help you or harm you?
do they really exist?.
In the 1930s Watchtower booklets sometimes illustrated paradise as their artists pictured it. Here are two examples:
From His Works, 1934:
The image shows a pastoral society with the shepherd viewing post Armageddon remains. A bit gruesome.
This is from Home and Happiness, 1932:
Image shows a nice home - 1930s style of course - with a discarded cannon used as a bird's nest.
