Are Jehovah's witnesses real Christians?

[Peterlag]

No, that is not true, Jesus came in the flesh means he was born as a man, while still being God. Your issue is you can not accept God the Son could be born as baby, and grow up like a man. However that was part of the plan, he took on flesh and blood on purpose.
Your view is an absurdity. Your just making stuff up, against the scriptures.

Hebrews 2

10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who [g]sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying:

“I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”
13 And again:

“I will put My trust in Him.”
And again:

“Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.”
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not [h]give aid to angels, but He does [i]give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being [j]tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Without this becoming incarnated as flesh and blood, HE could not have accomplished the work of salvation that He did for His people.
See your very nature of your Christ is showing all how false he is, that he is different from the Christ of God in the scriptures. By that you can know that you are in a cult.

Chris could only die, if HE was born as a man. This is fundamental for our salvation. Thus your faith is null and void as it is not in Christ but a false construct.

This is really amazing. I put pure Bible in front of you and you tell me it's absurd. I complain to the Lord and he tells me he had the same problem.

 

[Peterlag]

Why dont you escape from the JW hold on you?
You can read scripture on your own without them guiding your thoughts. You do not need them to teach the truth.
In truth, it is impossible for anyone to be taught to know the Lord.
The Holy Spirit is the teacher that brings you to Christ, not church doctrines.

Hebrews 8 describes what God does, no man is used by God so that someone truly knows God, note v10-12

A New Covenant​

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins [b]and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

I don't have much to say about this JW stuff because I don't know anything about it. I only heard one woman on here @Aunty Jane say that Jesus was around before he was born and that is imposible to be around before you're born. Other than that I know nothing about a JW.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Okay, let's look into this...

Let’s.....

In John 10:30, Jesus said, "The Father and I are one.” and in John 17:21, He said, " As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

OK.....let’s see what Jesus actually said, not just the cherry picked verses.

John 10:30 is actually countered by John 17:20-22 if you read on one more verse....where Jesus said....
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one”. (ESV)

Being “one” means being in full harmony or agreement, with the Father, the son and those who become disciples of Christ, all being ‘on the same page’. (1 Corinthians 1:10) You have to let all of what scripture says, to teach the truth. Cherry picking is dangerous.

If a person was to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of Christendom’s version of God, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? The truth is, they would not, because every single scripture they use is never a clear declaration for either God or his son that they are other than what they themselves say about their relationship.....Father and son are separate entities. A son cannot be equal to his father because his father caused his birth. A father always exists before his son, so that one who is "begotten" needs a "begetter". The pre-human Jesus was always God's "firstborn"......one used by the Father in the creation of all things. (Colossians 1:15-17) It is God and his Christ who determined their relationship....not humans.

What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, (the one Jesus called "the only true God". John 17:3) separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also a separate and distinct personage, the first of God's creations......and subordinate to his God. (John 14:28; Revelation 3:14) The son did not convey his own message, but was told what to teach by his God and Father. (John 12:48-49)

And John wrote in 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." I don't know how much more proof you need than these verses. . . . .

I always shudder when people write such nonsense as the Greek word "theos" in John 1:1 does not mean what many assume that it means in English. Are you a bona fide scholar of Koine Greek? Are your credentials so impeccable that you claim that virtually every Christian scholar disagrees with you? If so, what are they?

The Koine Greek does not lie, but the scholars who interpreted it have, because they have not translated the Greek without bias creeping onto their translation.
Those "bona fide scholars" were all trinitarians, and so their translation reflected their strongly held belief.

Using Strongs Concordance in no way invalidates what I showed you.....
John 1:1 in the Greek states.....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

"Theos" is translated "god" because it means basically 'a divine mighty one', "a god or goddess or divinity", which described all of the Greek gods. Since the Jews had ceased using the divine name, there was no way in the Greek language to identify the (now) nameless "God" of the Jews, so they used the definite article ('ho" meaning "the") to identify "the only true God" (John 17:3) from all other gods. You can see it in the interlinear translation above.
Only the first mention of "God" has the definite article, where the second does not. That means one is "the God" and the other is "a god" or "divine, god-like one".

Most in Christendom know "theos" as "God" (capital "G") but the Greek had no upper or lower case, and no punctuation.....so again it was open to interpretation as to whether a capital "G" was used or not. It is clear to any observer that doctrine dictated the rendering more so than correct translation.

Most also believe that John 10:31-36 is proof that the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be "God", even though he never identified himself as such. Read it in your own translation first and then read it from the Greek Interlinear.....

In Greek it reads...
"31 The ho Jews Ioudaios again palin brought bastazō stones lithos to hina stone lithazō him autos. 32 Jesus Iēsous said apokrinomai to them autos, · ho “ I have shown deiknymi you hymeis many polys noble kalos works ergon from ek the ho Father patēr; for dia which poios one ergon of them autos do you intend to stone lithazō me egō?” 33 The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’?"

The definite article identifies Yahweh (ho theos) from the son (theos).
One little word Jim B....the omission of which is deliberate and misleading...and changes the whole meaning of this passage....as well as John 1:1.

I fully accept the scholarship that overwhelmingly translates John 1:1 as saying that Jesus was God. That fact that you have to resort to Strong's Concordance to prove your point shows the limits of your knowledge.

Here is what the Expositor's Bible Commentary has to say about John 1:1. Read it and you might just learn something...<snipped for brevity>

You are free to believe whatever, and whomever you wish.....but if this doctrine is based on poor translation, as the above scriptures prove, then shouldn't it be exposed for what it is? What benefit is there in believing something that is not true, especially something so important as the very nature of God himself?

The pre-existent Jesus was always the "only begotten son of God" because he was unique in all creation......he was the first and only direct creation of his Father, and was used as the agency "through" whom all creation came. (Colossians 1:15-17)

Just read the Bible for yourself and do some homework that is outside of the doctrines promoted by the most unchristian organizations on earth......the divided churches of Christendom....the original ones planted by the devil so long ago, that people can't see how they have been manipulated to believe his lies, rather than an unpopular truth.

We all have decisions to make.....and we will all be judged on them as expressions of our own free will.

 

[Peterlag]

Let’s.....

OK.....let’s see what Jesus actually said, not just the cherry picked verses.

John 10:30 is actually countered by John 17:20-22 if you read on one more verse....where Jesus said....
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one”. (ESV)

Being “one” means being in full harmony or agreement, with the Father, the son and those who become disciples of Christ, all being ‘on the same page’. (1 Corinthians 1:10) You have to let all of what scripture says, to teach the truth. Cherry picking is dangerous.

If a person was to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of Christendom’s version of God, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? The truth is, they would not, because every single scripture they use is never a clear declaration for either God or his son that they are other than what they themselves say about their relationship.....Father and son are separate entities. A son cannot be equal to his father because his father caused his birth. A father always exists before his son, so that one who is "begotten" needs a "begetter". The pre-human Jesus was always God's "firstborn"......one used by the Father in the creation of all things. (Colossians 1:15-17) It is God and his Christ who determined their relationship....not humans.

What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, (the one Jesus called "the only true God". John 17:3) separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also a separate and distinct personage, the first of God's creations......and subordinate to his God. (John 14:28; Revelation 3:14) The son did not convey his own message, but was told what to teach by his God and Father. (John 12:48-49)


The Koine Greek does not lie, but the scholars who interpreted it have, because they have not translated the Greek without bias creeping onto their translation.
Those "bona fide scholars" were all trinitarians, and so their translation reflected their strongly held belief.

Using Strongs Concordance in no way invalidates what I showed you.....
John 1:1 in the Greek states.....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

"Theos" is translated "god" because it means basically 'a divine mighty one', "a god or goddess or divinity", which described all of the Greek gods. Since the Jews had ceased using the divine name, there was no way in the Greek language to identify the (now) nameless "God" of the Jews, so they used the definite article ('ho" meaning "the") to identify "the only true God" (John 17:3) from all other gods. You can see it in the interlinear translation above.
Only the first mention of "God" has the definite article, where the second does not. That means one is "the God" and the other is "a god" or "divine, god-like one".

Most in Christendom know "theos" as "God" (capital "G") but the Greek had no upper or lower case, and no punctuation.....so again it was open to interpretation as to whether a capital "G" was used or not. It is clear to any observer that doctrine dictated the rendering more so than correct translation.

Most also believe that John 10:31-36 is proof that the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be "God", even though he never identified himself as such. Read it in your own translation first and then read it from the Greek Interlinear.....

In Greek it reads...
"31 The ho Jews Ioudaios again palin brought bastazō stones lithos to hina stone lithazō him autos. 32 Jesus Iēsous said apokrinomai to them autos, · ho “ I have shown deiknymi you hymeis many polys noble kalos works ergon from ek the ho Father patēr; for dia which poios one ergon of them autos do you intend to stone lithazō me egō?” 33 The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’?"

The definite article identifies Yahweh (ho theos) from the son (theos).
One little word Jim B....the omission of which is deliberate and misleading...and changes the whole meaning of this passage....as well as John 1:1.


You are free to believe whatever, and whomever you wish.....but if this doctrine is based on poor translation, as the above scriptures prove, then shouldn't it be exposed for what it is? What benefit is there in believing something that is not true, especially something so important as the very nature of God himself?

The pre-existent Jesus was always the "only begotten son of God" because he was unique in all creation......he was the first and only direct creation of his Father, and was used as the agency "through" whom all creation came. (Colossians 1:15-17)

Just read the Bible for yourself and do some homework that is outside of the doctrines promoted by the most unchristian organizations on earth......the divided churches of Christendom....the original ones planted by the devil so long ago, that people can't see how they have been manipulated to believe his lies, rather than an unpopular truth.

We all have decisions to make.....and we will all be judged on them as expressions of our own free will.

Good stuff. Why can't people understand the word "one" in the context it's being used in?

OK.....let’s see what Jesus actually said, not just the cherry picked verses.

John 10:30 is actually countered by John 17:20-22 if you read on one more verse....where Jesus said....
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one”. (ESV)

Being “one” means being in full harmony or agreement, with the Father, the son and those who become disciples of Christ, all being ‘on the same page’.

 

[Robert Gwin]

JW teach many false doctrines, so the organization cannot be of God.
But there could be some saved people stuck in the group, who will be with Jesus in heaven.
Some other churches also teach false things. I try to avoid arguing with them, but sometimes you have to point out the absurdities they hold on to.

The fact this has been pointed out many times to them yet they do not change their mind, shows also they have not been granted repentance from God to know the truth. Arguing with them is not going to change them. But God can do it.

It is our responsibility as God's people to make full proof of our ministry Scott 2 Tim 4:5. I believe in doing my utmost to do so, however just because I point out the Scriptural evidence of our teachings, it does not mean that you will accept it. So please mention one of those "false" doctrines and I will give you the reason from the Bible why we believe and teach that sir.

 

[Peterlag]

It is our responsibility as God's people to make full proof of our ministry Scott 2 Tim 4:5. I believe in doing my utmost to do so, however just because I point out the Scriptural evidence of our teachings, it does not mean that you will accept it. So please mention one of those "false" doctrines and I will give you the reason from the Bible why we believe and teach that sir.

This seems to crack me up a bit this morning as I look at this post. Scott does not see what Robert sees. Robert does not see what Scott sees. And both do not see what I see nor do I see what both of them see.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Jesus also told some not to "tell anyone" about the acts of God that He did...but it is rather the rest of scripture that declares that Jesus (the Word) is God, saying from the beginning, "In the beginning God...", and that "All things were created through Him and for Him."

It is also written that "With the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you." Therefore, consider all of what is written, rather than just the parts acknowledged by your religion.

With the exception of the faithful and true witness which was the very beginning of the creation of God Rev 3:14 everything was in fact created through and for Jesus as you stated Scott, thus the reason why he is the master craftsman Pro 8:30. But since he is the firstborn of all creation, obviously he could not have participated in his own creation, he was possessed in the beginning of God's way sir Pro 8:22

hnq Qanah (kaw-naw'); Verb, Strong #: 7069 to get, acquire, create, buy, possess (Qal) to get, acquire, obtain 1a of God originating, creating, redeeming His people 1a possessor 1a of Eve acquiring 1a of acquiring knowledge, wisdom to buy (Niphal) to be bought (Hiphil) to cause to possess

 

[Scott Downey]

It is our responsibility as God's people to make full proof of our ministry Scott 2 Tim 4:5. I believe in doing my utmost to do so, however just because I point out the Scriptural evidence of our teachings, it does not mean that you will accept it. So please mention one of those "false" doctrines and I will give you the reason from the Bible why we believe and teach that sir.

Here is one,
Jesus is mediator for the 144,000 alone.

"Likewise, the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members." Worldwide Security Under the "Prince of Peace" (1986) pp.10-11

"The "great crowd" of "other sheep" that is forming today is not in that new covenant. However, by their associating with the "little flock" of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant." Watchtower 1979 Apr 1 p.31

Scripture though says all believers are members of the new covenant established in Christ's blood, as they are saved by believing, not just 144,000 are members of the New Covenant. If you are outside that covenant, you are not saved, meaning you will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire at the end of the age.

Hebrews 12:24
to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

1 Timothy 2
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

Hebrews 9
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without [a]spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’

Acts 16:31
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Scott Downey]

By the above, since most JW say they are not members of the New Covenant, they are not saved.

 

[Jim B]

Let’s.....

OK.....let’s see what Jesus actually said, not just the cherry picked verses.

John 10:30 is actually countered by John 17:20-22 if you read on one more verse....where Jesus said....
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one”. (ESV)

Being “one” means being in full harmony or agreement, with the Father, the son and those who become disciples of Christ, all being ‘on the same page’. (1 Corinthians 1:10) You have to let all of what scripture says, to teach the truth. Cherry picking is dangerous.

If a person was to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of Christendom’s version of God, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? The truth is, they would not, because every single scripture they use is never a clear declaration for either God or his son that they are other than what they themselves say about their relationship.....Father and son are separate entities. A son cannot be equal to his father because his father caused his birth. A father always exists before his son, so that one who is "begotten" needs a "begetter". The pre-human Jesus was always God's "firstborn"......one used by the Father in the creation of all things. (Colossians 1:15-17) It is God and his Christ who determined their relationship....not humans.

What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, (the one Jesus called "the only true God". John 17:3) separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also a separate and distinct personage, the first of God's creations......and subordinate to his God. (John 14:28; Revelation 3:14) The son did not convey his own message, but was told what to teach by his God and Father. (John 12:48-49)


The Koine Greek does not lie, but the scholars who interpreted it have, because they have not translated the Greek without bias creeping onto their translation.
Those "bona fide scholars" were all trinitarians, and so their translation reflected their strongly held belief.

Using Strongs Concordance in no way invalidates what I showed you.....
John 1:1 in the Greek states.....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

"Theos" is translated "god" because it means basically 'a divine mighty one', "a god or goddess or divinity", which described all of the Greek gods. Since the Jews had ceased using the divine name, there was no way in the Greek language to identify the (now) nameless "God" of the Jews, so they used the definite article ('ho" meaning "the") to identify "the only true God" (John 17:3) from all other gods. You can see it in the interlinear translation above.
Only the first mention of "God" has the definite article, where the second does not. That means one is "the God" and the other is "a god" or "divine, god-like one".

Most in Christendom know "theos" as "God" (capital "G") but the Greek had no upper or lower case, and no punctuation.....so again it was open to interpretation as to whether a capital "G" was used or not. It is clear to any observer that doctrine dictated the rendering more so than correct translation.

Most also believe that John 10:31-36 is proof that the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be "God", even though he never identified himself as such. Read it in your own translation first and then read it from the Greek Interlinear.....

In Greek it reads...
"31 The ho Jews Ioudaios again palin brought bastazō stones lithos to hina stone lithazō him autos. 32 Jesus Iēsous said apokrinomai to them autos, · ho “ I have shown deiknymi you hymeis many polys noble kalos works ergon from ek the ho Father patēr; for dia which poios one ergon of them autos do you intend to stone lithazō me egō?” 33 The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’?"

The definite article identifies Yahweh (ho theos) from the son (theos).
One little word Jim B....the omission of which is deliberate and misleading...and changes the whole meaning of this passage....as well as John 1:1.


You are free to believe whatever, and whomever you wish.....but if this doctrine is based on poor translation, as the above scriptures prove, then shouldn't it be exposed for what it is? What benefit is there in believing something that is not true, especially something so important as the very nature of God himself?

The pre-existent Jesus was always the "only begotten son of God" because he was unique in all creation......he was the first and only direct creation of his Father, and was used as the agency "through" whom all creation came. (Colossians 1:15-17)

Just read the Bible for yourself and do some homework that is outside of the doctrines promoted by the most unchristian organizations on earth......the divided churches of Christendom....the original ones planted by the devil so long ago, that people can't see how they have been manipulated to believe his lies, rather than an unpopular truth.

We all have decisions to make.....and we will all be judged on them as expressions of our own free will.

Oh now I see! The scholars have lied but you are telling the truth. I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[ScottA]

With the exception of the faithful and true witness which was the very beginning of the creation of God Rev 3:14 everything was in fact created through and for Jesus as you stated Scott, thus the reason why he is the master craftsman Pro 8:30. But since he is the firstborn of all creation, obviously he could not have participated in his own creation, he was possessed in the beginning of God's way sir Pro 8:22

hnq Qanah (kaw-naw'); Verb, Strong #: 7069 to get, acquire, create, buy, possess (Qal) to get, acquire, obtain 1a of God originating, creating, redeeming His people 1a possessor 1a of Eve acquiring 1a of acquiring knowledge, wisdom to buy (Niphal) to be bought (Hiphil) to cause to possess

You are leaning on your own understanding.

Even in that understanding, if you yourself "created" an image of yourself--who is it?

To the contrary, what you have presented and would seem to believe for you state it as if it were fact (when it is not), you have taken that very simple matter of an image of God being God by image--and "what God has joined together"--you have separated.

This one thing should bring change to much of what you have believed.

 

[Wrangler]

You are leaning on your own understanding.

Ironic because that is what you are doing.

Even in that understanding, if you yourself "created" an image of yourself--who is it?

Invalid question. An image is a WHAT not a WHO.

Subjects are not objects of sentences. An image of WHO does not change the nature of an image being a WHAT.

Also, basic reading comprehension, converses are not equivalent. Joe of Maryland is not Maryland of Joe. Image of God is not God of image.

 

[Wrangler]

you have taken that very simple matter of an image of God being God by image--and "what God has joined together"--you have separated.

Huh? I haven't heard such doublespeak since I read 1984.

 

[ScottA]

Ironic because that is what you are doing.

Invalid question. An image is a WHAT not a WHO.

Subjects are not objects of sentences. An image of WHO does not change the nature of an image being a WHAT.

Also, basic reading comprehension, converses are not equivalent. Joe of Maryland is not Maryland of Joe. Image of God is not God of image.

Huh? I haven't heard such doublespeak since I read 1984.

You are stumbling over the words.

It is a very simple statement by God. Paraphrasing the scripture, He created man (and the Son of Man) in His own image. There are three subjects in that statement regarding "who." And then there is one additional subject regarding "what." And even another if you want to consider "why"...and why not also consider the subject of "when?"

But that was not my point, and now you are down a rabbit hole for attempting to be contrary referring rather to those things which I did not mean to address. You're off topic.

 

[Wrangler]

You are stumbling over the words.

It is a very simple statement by God. Paraphrasing the scripture, He created man (and the Son of Man) in His own image. There are three subjects in that statement

I'm not stumbling at all - you are. There is one subject in the paraphrase sentence, "He" (Referring to God).

There are 3 objects which He is acting on, created:

• man
• the Son of Man
• his own image

Consider the simple sentence, "I cut my own hair." The subject is I. And "I" is acting on the object of the sentence, 'my own hair.' Keep in mind the object is not doing the acting - AND is not the subject. Language usage. Reading comprehension.

 

[amigo de christo]

This seems to crack me up a bit this morning as I look at this post. Scott does not see what Robert sees. Robert does not see what Scott sees. And both do not see what I see nor do I see what both of them see.

If you think that is funny or odd . wait till you see the mass majority who now believe its A okay no mattter what one believes
and they actually think all are on the same path leading them to GOD in different ways .. what a crock that lie is .
I say learn those bibles , learn JESUS well .

 

[ScottA]

I'm not stumbling at all - you are. There is one subject in the paraphrase sentence, "He" (Referring to God).

There are 3 objects which He is acting on, created:

• man
• the Son of Man
• his own image

Consider the simple sentence, "I cut my own hair." The subject is I. And "I" is acting on the object of the sentence, 'my own hair.' Keep in mind the object is not doing the acting - AND is not the subject. Language usage. Reading comprehension.

That's all handy in literature, but you have missed the point--mine (and God's apparently).

It doesn't matter if it is poor english, or good or bad english. The point is God created an image of Himself in creating man--which is an act of revelation...not revealing "what" but "who"--that is, revealing God Himself.

Applying that to my point...my comment was to point out that even though God gave Christ a name, the Son of Man is not another person, but rather the perfect "image" of God made manifest to the world. Therefore, as it pertains to my answer to @Robert Gwin, it is wrong to say that Jesus is not God, any more than a picture of you or I is not us, even if it is only and "image" of us. The context being: "Who."

 

[Aunty Jane]

If you think that is funny or odd . wait till you see the mass majority who now believe its A okay no mattter what one believes
and they actually think all are on the same path leading them to GOD in different ways .. what a crock that lie is .
I say learn those bibles , learn JESUS well .

This is a very basic truth amigo.....but it’s not as simple as that. The “mass majority” will fail the final test as Jesus has already indicated. (Matthew 7:21-23) But as Jesus also stated....”No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him . . . . .This is why I have said to you, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”. (John 6:44, 65)

If no one can come to the Son without an invitation from his Father....how does one receive that invitation?....and why do those in the “mass majority” not know that Jesus will reject them?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Wrangler]

it is wrong to say that Jesus is not God, any more that a picture of you or I is not us

Triple negative. Huh? You are saying that a picture of Being A is Being A.

Simplifying the sentence - and stating things properly. It is right to say that no image is WHO the Being the image is of because the image is not a WHO.

 

[amigo de christo]

This is a very basic truth amigo.....but it’s not as simple as that. The “mass majority” will fail the final test as Jesus has already indicated. (Matthew 7:21-23) But as Jesus also stated....”No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him . . . . .This is why I have said to you, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”. (John 6:44, 65)

If no one can come to the Son without an invitation from his Father....how does one receive that invitation?....and why do those in the “mass majority” not know that Jesus will reject them?

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are DO as JESUS and the early church did . IF we want folks saved , PREACH THE GOSPEL .
IF we see brethren in error , CORRECT them . IF we see sin in brethren REBUKE IT FAST .
If not prepare for leaven to fill the place and person . Just as it has in many places now .
Folks wont correct anymore . THEY just say hey lets grab a mormon a catholic and etc AND JUST HUG and get along .
THAT is a total recipe for all out leaven to rise up . AND it saves none either , it destroys them .
TIME to correct . Time to stand upon the teachings of CHRIST and i mean ALL THINGS
and time to stand upon ALL things the apotestls also taught .
Instead folks had rather sit under men who just say LETS HUG and do some good works and they have no desire
to teach sound doctrine anymore . THAT is how the whole lump leavens full . WE NEED TO RETURN to the original
pattern set to us in the HOLY SCRIPS , while we got time to do so .
IF we want folks saved , THEN tell the world about JESUS . IF we want many who calls themselves christain
then make sure they follow THE JESUS and not some other jesus created of men .