Posts by fjtoth

Isn't it true that Jesus said his teaching was not his own? If it wasn't his, where did he get it from? Are you going to deny that the Father was the Source, just as he was for all the prophets?

In the ancient Jewish nation Moses was "the way" through whom the people gained approach to God. Moses was the Mediator between God and men. He was God's "truth" spokesman to Israel, to Egypt and to the rest of the world. There was no salvation or "life" by resurrection except by obedience to Moses. Don't you see the comparison?

God himself told Moses, 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19)

Is there something about that long-range prophecy concerning Jesus that you do not accept? If so, what is it specifically? Did God say he himself was going to be that future prophet? Or did he say the prophet Jesus would come from among Moses' countrymen and be like Moses?

The Bible tells us Moses was God in his day. (Exodus 4:16; 7:1, 2) That was due to his position as God's chief agent or instrument in the earth. Similarly, Jesus is called God in the New Testament, not because he is God in actuality but because he is the prophet like Moses. One big difference is that Jesus our Lord and God by appointment is still alive and will be for evermore. He will not be Lord and God forever, however. The Bible says clearly that someday he will return his authority to God that the Father may be "all things to everyone," to everyone including Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:24)

Those who became Jesus' disciples were awaiting the foretold prophet like Moses. And when Jesus as the Messiah arrived, he was everything that the disciples expected. They were not expecting that God himself would arrive. (John 1:45) Following his crucifixion, some of the disciples summed up his ministry by speaking of it as "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people." (Luke 24:19)

Just as Moses was the Mediator between God and men, so Jesus is now the Mediator between God and us. (Galatians 3:19, 20) "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)

Ask yourself, Was Moses Almighty God or was he the Mediator with Almighty God on one side and men on the other? Is Jesus Almighty God or is he like Moses standing between Almighty God and men? I would like to see your comments on these verses. I cannot comprehend how they can be ignored or given a twist so as to say something the Bible writers did not intend.

Concerning Jesus, we read "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; He was faithful to him who appointed him, as Moses also was in all his house." (Hebrews 3:1, 2)

Frank

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,

The quotation above from the JF&B Commentary on John 3:31-34 is very misleading. The Commentary may be nice to have, but it has its weaknesses. Just analyze the following sentence with an open mind:

The servants, on the contrary, springing of earth, are of the earth, and their testimony, even though divine in authority, partakes necessarily of their own earthiness.

Contrary to what the Commentary would have us believe, John the Baptist was not discussing the testimony of himself or the testimony of other prophets of God. If he was, he contradicted himself within just a few sentences. Verse 27 says, "John answered and said, 'A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven."

Do you believe John's testimony was not "given him from heaven"? John said in the next verse (28) that he had been "sent" ahead of Jesus. Did he send himself? The answer is obviously that God sent him. That being the case, what he spoke was the same as if God himself was speaking. In verse 34 John said of himself as well as of Jesus: "For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for he gives the spirit without measure."

So if John was one "whom God has sent," he was one who "speaks the words of God." It is incorrect for the Commentary to state that John's message "partakes necessarily of [his] own earthiness." There is absolutely nothing within the context to suggest such was the case.

It just isn't possible that John meant himself when he said "he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth." (Verse 31) According to verse 12, Jesus himself spoke "earthly things," but like John's message, the words of Jesus were inspired and fully trustworthy. John was not a Pharisee, persons Jesus spoke against for being "from below" and "of this world." They were the type of person John meant when he spoke of "he who is of the earth." That is why Jesus said to them, and not to persons like John, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins." (John 8:23, 24)

There is an air of contradiction in the following sentence from the Commentary:

The words of prophets and apostles are undeniable and most precious truth; but in the words of Christ we hear a voice as from the excellent Glory, the Eternal Word making Himself heard in our own flesh.

If "the words of prophets and apostles are undeniable and most precious truth," why should they not be trusted fully 100%? In what way are they somehow inferior to the words of Christ? Like John, those prophets and apostles were sent by God and spoke "the words of God." The Commentary would have us believe that "the words of God" carry more or less weight depending upon who speaks them, and that is ridiculous. God is God, and "the words of God" are always under all circumstances "the words of God."

Your trust in such authorities is disappointing to me. I hope it isn't true, but you give me the impression that you trust the JF&B Commentary and other uninspired sources more than some parts of the Bible itself. It is beyond me how anyone who says the following, as you have, can believe some parts of the Bible are trivial, as you've said in previous posts in this thread, and can't be depended upon as much as other parts:

Every single word and every single jot and tittle of the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation (excluding the Apocrypha), is God-breathed, inspired directly by The Holy Spirit. It is infallible, incorruptible, perfect, nothing should ever be added to it or taken away from it. It is the revelation of God to man. It is the only such inspired writing on earth. Jesus promised that every word of the Old Testament would never pass away, and He made the same promise about His own Words.

I've met very few Bible believers who have come on as strong as you for the purpose of emphasizing that the Bible contains portions that are less valuable than other parts. If the entire Bible is "breathed of God," who is any mere earthling among us to view some of God's Holy Word as trivial? As Jesus said to his Father and ours, "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) I tend to think Jesus meant every word of it, not just certain portions of the Bible.

I know one thing for sure: If I was the one who started this thread with the goal of enlightening the JWs, and if I shared your doubts about portions of the Bible, I certainly would not let my suspicions be known. Say what we will about JWs, I can guarantee you that it's a turn-off when they read your claim that the Bible contains "myths" and "endless geneologies" and that some portions are less important for study than others.

You wrote:

Mar 13:31 - Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away — the strongest possible expression of the divine authority by which He spake; not as Moses or Paul might have said of their own inspiration, for such language would be unsuitable in any merely human mouth.
Placing the words of Moses on a par with his own, Jesus asked his enemies, "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:47)
Do you truly believe that the inspiration Moses and Paul received from God was in some way inferior, that it would have been "unsuitable" for them to claim that their writings would pass away before heaven and earth passed away? Have you given thought to the words of the apostle at 2 Peter 1:20, 21? Concerning Moses and all the other writers of the Scriptures, Peter wrote, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
Then in verse 25, Peter wrote: "'But the word of the Lord endures forever.' And this is the word which was preached to you." The preaching that was done by Peter and the other apostles was as good as if the Lord himself was doing the preaching. So on what basis can you continue to advocate the idea that some parts of the Bible are inferior, as if to say they will pass away before heaven and earth pass away wheras the words of Jesus will not?
This is not a minor point. Peter wrote that we should "know this first of all." Moses didn't write his "own interpretation ... by an act of human will." Moses and all the other Bible writers wrote what God had spoken. It was God's own spirit that "moved" them to write. So how can you say that it would have been "unsuitable" of them to speak similar to the way Jesus did about his message from God?
Have you ever thought about what Paul wrote at Romans 15:4? "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." And what about his words at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17? "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
The source of what Moses and Paul wrote was just as trustworthy and dependable as the source of what Jesus spoke. Jesus said, you remember, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me." (John 7:16)

Frank

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped wrote in defense of questions he raised when starting this thread:

1) Somewhere out there a JW might read them and start to think for himself.

JWs run to their Watchtowers and their elders when they can't answer questions with the Bible alone. But aren't we doing the same thing if we go running to the so-called "Early Church Fathers" and Bible commentaries? Aren't we using them like JWs use their Watchtower publications?

You stated and, pardon me for saying so, rather piously I thought:

You see, the main thing that you fail to realize, which I have told you several times before ... is that the Bible clearly says that there are only TWO TYPES OF GODS:

Actually, the Bible tells us that there are several types of Gods, not just two:

The true God whose name is Jehovah.
Jesus, the only-begotten God (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:18)
Angels (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:6-8)
Christian saints (Revelation 3:9) who share in the divine nature. (1 Corinthians 15:36, 38, 44, 49, 51; 2 Peter 1:4; 1)
Human kings and judges in Israel in their capacity as representatives of Jehovah (Exodus 4:16; 7:1; Psalm 45:6; 82:1, 6; John 10:34, 35)
Satan the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19)
Demons and Sprites (Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20; Revelation 9:20)
Stars, Planets and the Moon (Job 31:26-28; Amos 5:26; Acts 7:43)
Emperors, kings and other humans who do not worship the true God (Acts 5:29; 12:21, 22)
Idol gods and goddesses (Exodus 20:3-5; 32:3-10; Isaiah 42:8)
Good Luck (Isaiah 65:11, 12)
The human belly and anything to which humans direct adoration (Philippians 3:19)
Animals and vegetation (Romans 1:21-23)

Eventually, the only God in the universe will be the Father of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:23-28)

You wrote:

The Apostle Paul taught that there is only the True God, and then there are the so-called "gods" and "lords." Paul SEPARATED Jesus from the so-called "gods!" Jesus is NOT one of the so-called "gods," therefore, the only other category left is THE ONE TRUE GOD.

But aren't you ignoring the identification supplied by the apostle as to who that only "True God" is? Surely you must notice that the apostle wrote, "for us there is one God, the Father"? (1 Corinthians 8:6)

You went on to say:

Also, Paul said that Jesus was the True God by Nature: Colossians 2:9 (ESV): For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Here you used a translation that says "deity" instead of "divine nature." As shown above, there are many deities or gods. No legitimate deity is only a partial diety. Each one possesses "the whole fullness of deity." That is true of Jesus who was anointed and appointed by the Father, but it is also true of all other legitimate gods assigned to be such by the Father. Now let's suppose the Greek word should be translated "divine nature." Does that prove Jesus is Almighty God? Apparently not, since Peter tells us that you and I "may become partakers of the divine nature." (1 Peter 1:4) More than that, Paul expressed the hope that Christians "may be filled up to all the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:19) If you were "filled up to all the fullness of God," would that cause you to think of yourself as Almighty God? Surely not! So, then, why would you want to insist that Jesus is Almighty God simply because the text says that "the whole fullness of divine nature dwells bodily" within him? The best insights come from comparing Scripture with Scripture, and this comparison shows that having "the whole fullness of divine nature" does not make anyone the Almighty God except for the Father.

In your effort to prove that Jesus is God, you gave the following quotation:

Hebrews 1:3 (ESV): He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

You shouldn't fail to notice that Christ is "the radiance of the glory of God." Christ is not God, but he radiates God's glory like the moon radiates the sun's glory. The moon and the sun are not equal, and neither are the Son of God and God himself. "The glory" is God's; he is its source. The Son reflects or radiates that glory. The verse goes on to say something else that I think you may have failed to notice: The Son is "the exact imprint of" God's nature. He doesn't possess God's nature, but he is the "imprint" of that nature's glory, as if God had stamped upon him a copy of himself. That is why Jesus could say, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." Christ is so much like God that he bears a striking resemblance. But he is not God himself, or there would be two Almighty Gods. Eugene H. Peterson's Message Bible says it plainly and nicely: "This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature."

You stated that the Trinitarian belief

... is based on numerous Scriptures, which prove that Jesus has all of the attributes, powers, qualities, rights, privileges, and authority that The Father has (which are exclusive to God), and that the Bible shows that everything that The Father has, The Son also has, and that The Father shares His own glory with His Son

But you are not telling the full story. Everything the Son has was given to him. And it was given to him after he was born and more so after he was resurrected from the dead.

You cited Isaiah 42:8 to show that Christ must be God since God shared his glory with Christ, even though God said he would not share his glory with any other. But aren't you missing the context here? When God said "I will not give my glory to another," he was discussing graven images and false gods. He will not share his glory with them! See a similar example at Isaiah 48:11 and the context.

You made the claim

... that all of the same honor, glory, praise, thanks, and worship given to The Father must also be given to The Son, as God The Father Himself commands us (See John 5:22-23, Hebrews 1:6, and Philippians, 2:5-11)

But again, your claim does not take into account the context. For example, the verses surrounding John 5:22-23 tell us that the Father has delegated authority and power to the Son. Jesus said

"the Son can do nothing of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (Verse 19)
"The Father ... has given all judgment to the Son." (Verse 22)
"The Father sent him." (Verse 23)
"The Father ... gave to the Son also to have life in himself." (Verse 26)
"He gave him authority to execute judgment." (Verse 27)
"I can do nothing on my own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (Verse 30)
"The very works that I do--testify about me, that the Father has sent me." (Verse 36)

You wrote:

Then, by your own words you are a polytheist who follows TWO gods. Jesus Himself said this: Matthew 6:24 (ESV): "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. [...]

When you wrote this, you had already acknowledged that God speaks of others as God because they are his representatives. By quoting Matthew 6:24 you seem to have forgotten that acknowledgement. Your statement implies that obedience to God and obedience to a representative of God makes one a servant of two masters. But how can that be if love for God requires us to obey his representatives?

You asked:

How can a person love The Father (One God) with all his heart, all his soul, all his mind, and all his strength, while at the same time loving The Son (a 2nd lesser god according to you) with such a love that it makes your love for your family look like hatred in comparison, and how can you honor this 2nd lesser god to the same degree that you honor the first God? Your heart's love would end up being DIVIDED just as Jesus said in Matthew 6:24.

I don't comprehend your reasoning here. You are equating love of the Father with all ones heart, mind, soul and strength with loving Jesus more than one loves one's father and mother. You claim we can't do both, for then our love would be divided. Note, however, what 1 John 4:20 says: "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." The same applies with respect to Christ: No one can love the Father unless one also loves the Son.

A similar principle is stated at Luke 10:16: "The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects the One who sent me." Listening to a Christian means listening ultimately to God the Father, but that does mean the Christian is God. Rejecting a Christian's message is to ultimately reject God, and again that does not mean that the Christian is God.

You wrote with a tinge of sarcasm:

There is one of your problems. You are trying to understand God by using "common sense." True, Christians should definitely use common sense. But how can a finite human ever hope to understand the Nature and Being of God by using common sense. We're talking about an INFINITE God who never had a beginning, and will never have an end, Who is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent, and Who created all things. Try figuring all that out with your "common sense."

But Jesus said that the Jews knew God! They did not entertain notions such as you express here. They used both the Scriptures and common sense to develop their acquaintence with God. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22) I firmly believe Jesus would say to modern-day Trinitarians: "You worship what you do not know." The Jews did not worship a Trinity, and neither did Jesus. It takes only a little bit of common sense to realize that the God of Jesus and the Jews is not the same god that is worshiped by Trinitarians.

In a way, you yourself recommended "common sense" when you wrote yesterday:

I am trying to reason using logic and Scriptures.

Frank

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

Trinitarians tell us their God is composed of three divine Persons. However, they acknowledge that their concept of God cannot be precisely defined or described. It is the "mystery of mysteries" that only God can completely understand. There is no individual being they can point to who is composed of three separate persons. So what do they do in an effort to convince you and me that their false god is the true one?

Trinitarians have employed a host of analogies to illustrate the 3-in-1 nature of the their pagan god. Among the more well-known are:

the three-leaf clover
time(past, present, future)
water (liquid, mist, ice)
physics(matter, space, motion)
fire(light, heat, fuel)
personality (mind, emotions, will)
character(id, ego, super-ego)
space(the 3 dimensions)
verbal forms (I, you, he)
logic (major premise, minor premise, conclusion)
dialectics (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)
degrees(simple, comparative, superlative)
a three-cord rope
the triangle is the usual symbol of the Trinity, and has been used with many variations.

Trinitarians thus disregard the 10 Commandments by the use of these extremely weak gimmicks. God commands his people not to liken him to such things: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." (Exodus 20:4, ESV)

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.