What are the main doctrinal differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and mainstream Christianity?

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Yes. My statement stands. @Aunty Jane's post #115 does a good job detailing the illogical claim you make. Again, there is no verse that even claims Jesus is God. It's a simple statement and it is not made because of a very good reason; that is not what the Biblical authors thought.

Regarding imposing this notion onto Jesus. Well, read exegesis.

What I have said in #103 is what the Bible Teaches, you are free to ignore the TRUTH and continue to believe in your fairy tales!

 

[MatthewG]

Don't agree at all. The Scriptures were written to Christians, and yes, even to myself, to warn us about the "wolves" who would try to get in among the sheep and steal them away for destruction. I did not say I was judging the eternal destiny of people in doing this. I said we must discern between those who are genuine Christians and those who are fake.

As I said, some fake Christians can do genuine good works. But this doesn't make those good works "good fruit!" It just means that all men can do good because God wants them to and enables them to.

But doing good works is not good fruit because good fruit comes from abiding in the vine--not just picking fruit off the vine and presenting them as if it is their own. That is "Cain's gift," because by "Abel's gift" one doesn't just pass on somebody else's gift but truly offers up their entire life for Christ's life.

If people wish to display genuine "good fruit" they must accept the divine Christ and abide in him, and so become new creatures in Christ. Then they can produce genuine good fruit.

Otherwise, what you're doing is saying that some can get in by some other door than through the divine Christ. You can't get in the door by just a mere man, nor even by some sort of "Arian" superman.

Only if you approach Jesus as God in the flesh will you obtain both his forgiveness and his gift of the Spirit, along with Eternal Life. That's the Gospel. Anything less than this is corruption and a deception. The Bible warns us of this.

You know there are people out there I believe can be touched by God but may not know who Jesus is but God starts working on their heart and mind.

It is said that it is Faith that pleases God, thus you can not say what a man has faith in unless they take you by the hand and show you what they worship if it is made of stone.

How can anyone know if a person has faith other than someone confessing whom they have faith in?

This doesn’t talk about pleasing Jesus but pleasing God, himself.

“And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction, for in this were the elders testified of; by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing; by faith a better sacrifice did Abel offer to God than Cain, through which he was testified to be righteous, God testifying of his gifts, and through it, he being dead, doth yet speak. By faith Enoch was translated — not to see death, and was not found, because God did translate him; for before his translation he had been testified to — that he had pleased God well, and apart from faith it is impossible to please well, for it behoveth him who is coming to God to believe that He is, and to those seeking Him He becometh a rewarder.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11‬:‭1‬-‭6‬ ‭YLT98‬‬

Hebrews 11:1-6 And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction, for in this were the elders testified of; by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in | Young's Literal Translation 1898

And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction, for in this were the elders testified of; by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in

bible.com

I can’t judge the world. I can’t judge individual people.

You can share with them, and the only fruits caused by the spirit is always the attributes of love.

“If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing; and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing. The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up, doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil, rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth; all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth. The love doth never fail; and whether [there be] prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless; for in part we know, and in part we prophecy; and when that which is perfect may come, then that which [is] in part shall become useless. When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe; for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known; and now there doth remain faith, hope, love — these three; and the greatest of these [is] love.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭13‬:‭1‬-‭13‬ ‭YLT98‬‬

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, an | Young's Literal Translati

If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, an

bible.com

And as I said @Randy Kluth, I can’t say who has faith in their works or who says their faith rest in Jesus unless someone is proving information in which that is what they are doing.

To correct the. Would be lovingly let them know exactly how it is that Jesus covers all of their failures, and that even though they strive to good works, they should know that the good works are from God who is working in their heart and mind to love God and love others, which continues to be done until the end of life. It’s never anything we can do to make ourselves right before God, it’s all Jesus.

I am done with the conversation though, just because I believe this justifies the way Christian’s are suppose to be, in the way of agape love and thank you for taking time to read, and the conversation.

I’m not looking for people to agree with me, but to seek and search for what is true, in the respect of Jesus Christ and his victory over all things.

 

[Wrangler]

Hey man, I was not debating anything about Trinitarian.

I was asking a question, but you ignored it.

Not true. I originally answered it is post #109.

When I woke this morning I had the 'sweeping evidence off the table' tact on my mind. So, I answered it again. If you don't want to admit your question was in response to my posting 7 verses supporing the alternative hypothesis, that's on you.

 

[Wrangler]

What I have said in #103 is what the Bible Teaches

No. It doesn't. If it did, you would be able to actually provide a verse that states what you claim. Who teaches what you claim are those who engage in exegesis.

 

[MatthewG]

Not true. I originally answered it is post #109.

When I woke this morning I had the 'sweeping evidence off the table' tact on my mind. So, I answered it again. If you don't want to admit your question was in response to my posting 7 verses supporing the alternative hypothesis, that's on you.

Ok ; then oblige along your own way then.
I wasn’t here for 109.
It’s not on me at all. I don’t care.

Thank you for doing it this way.

 

[MatthewG]

I believe Jesus is Lord God Almighty, some don’t see the word in God becoming one again, but that’s explicitly found it in Revelation chapter 4 of the one who sits on the throne I believe it’s the fullness of God inside of the body of Christ Jesus. Just as the word was inside of the bosom of God before coming down.


At the end of the day, this don’t matter if we can’t love one another, despite our understandings on our differences, then we’re all going to go outside of the kingdom away from God.

 

[Wrangler]

Ok ; then oblige along your own way then.
I wasn’t here for 109.
It’s not on me at all.

It's not on you at all? You weren't here for 109? You asked. I answered. You gave me grief for not answering. Who is it on if not you?

Take responsibility dude! It's all on you!

A simple apology for missing my original reply to you is all it'd take.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Acceptance of Jesus as the divine savior is exactly what we are to do, but we know that the one who sent him is greater. (John 14:28) This is the one Jesus called “the only true God”. (John 17:3)

God cannot be divided up--He is One. So Jesus is a kind of lesser revelation of the one true God. But being divine he in no way is "less than God. He is simply a human revelation of God, and as such, it is the *revelation* of his humanity that is less than the revelation of God as Father. They are both the same God in different revelations, one reflecting God in human flesh, and the other reflecting God as the source of all divine revelation.

You cannot have a "lesser god," or it is not God at all! Your doctrine, indicating Christ is a lesser god, is actually a weird form of polytheism, there being a lesser god and a greater God. This is hardly biblical.

The Church Fathers inherited the apostolic tradition and doctrine, and interpreted it in the language of the Roman Empire. This was necessary since the original covenant, the Law, had been given to the Jewish People in their Hebrew tongue. A change in cultures requires a change in language, and greater explanation to initiate new groups of people into what once was for a single culture and a single people.

God didn't wait millennia to create the JWs to finally express the truth about Christ. It's preposterous to think this!

Do you claim an inheritance of criticism of the Christian Church from earliest times? If so, do you even recognize the critical spirit that marks your tradition?

You should recognize from your biblical learning that this is not the Spirit of Christ. It is not evangelical, is not edifying, and does not glorify Christ.

I say all this not to insult or offend you, but in the hope you will join true Christianity. It is not membership in a Christian denomination or cult. Rather, it is joining Jesus in spirit so that all those who likewise are one in spirit with Christ can be your brother and sister.

Problems in the Christian Church need to be remedied--not condemned or ignored. We should expect there to be "sick Christians" in the Church. It should be our duty to aid those who "need a physician," not throw them out like reprobates!

 

[Aunty Jane]

the first century AD, Rabbi Yose HaGelili, said of this passage:

“Thus rabbi Jose, of Galilee, says, ‘The name of the Messiah is shâlôm, as is said in Isa 9:6, “Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.” ‘Ben Sira (fol. 40, of the Amsterdam Edition, 1679) numbers among the eight names of the Messiah those also taken from this passage, Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace. The later Jews, however, have rejected this interpretation, because the Messiah is here described as God” (Albert Barnes Commentary)

About the same time we have the Jewish Targum of Jonathan Ben Uziel the disciple of Hillel (110 BC-10AD; Bab. Meg. 32):

“The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it, and his name has been called from of old (from eternity, Pauli ed), Wonderful counsellor, Mighty God, He who lives for ever, the Anointed one (or, Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us. Great shall be the splendour of them that observe the law, and of them that preserve peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to build it in judgement and in righteousness from henceforth and for ever: by the Memra of the Lord of hosts shall this be wrought” (Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel. J F Stenning; The Targum of Isaiah, p 32. Oxford 1953 ed, also, Rev. C. W. H. Pauli; Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel: The Chaldee Paraphrase on The Prophet Isaiah; pp.30, 31)

The Jews of the 1st century, clearly understood the words to refer to The Messiah!

Why quote later Jewish sources when discussing the Messiah? They still don’t believe he came, and are still waiting....Jewish scripture is what we need to concentrate on, and what it was that the Jews were told to expect their Messiah to be.
All of the things mentioned in Isa 9:6-7 proved to be true, as explained in post #114.

The Jews would never have accepted that Messiah was God incarnate.....they tried to pin a charge of blasphemy on him for merely claiming to be “the son of God”. (John 10:31-36) Jesus never once claimed to be God Almighty.

The Hebrew, “אב”, is a very broad word, which does not always have the meaning of “father”. In “the Sumerian language…a later a-a, ‘father’ = ‘begetter’…a-a-kalam-ma, ‘father of the land’, i.e., begetter and creator of the world…Like the other Semitic languages…abu... ‘father’…is used as a synonym for banu, ‘begetter’…In Hebrew ‘abh sometimes means the founder…protector” (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. I, under ‘abh). “Of the author, or maker of anything, specially of the Creator” (Gesenius Hebrew lexicon). “originator, producer, generator, protector, ruler” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew lexicon)

Likewise, in the Greek, πατὴρ, also has the meanings, “author” (Liddell & Scott, Greek lexicon). “founder…as the originator and ruler” (W. Arndt & F. Gingrich Greek lexicon). “the originator, protector, creator” (Thayer Greek lexicon).

Are you backtracking now? Seeing the harmony between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek is proof that both are inspired by the same author.....but only Jehovah is the Father, Jesus is his son and the holy spirit is the exercise of his great power.....given to whomever God wishes to grant it....or sent to wherever his purpose demands it.

In neither the Hebrew of Greek, do the terms need to be understood as “father”, and certainly not as God the Father. We can understand the words to mean “originator, begetter, author”, which is true of God the Father, and Jesus Christ.

No sorry...Jesus is never spoken of as a "father" to his disciples.....they are his "brothers". When he taught his disciples to pray he addressed Jehovah as "Our Father". He said to Mary Magdalene...
“Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” (John 20:17 NKJV)

Jesus is "begotten" but he needed a begetter, whom the Bible says is his Father....he did not beget himself.

Jesus is not the author of anything....he claimed nothing that he taught was his own, but all he taught came from his Father.
John 8:28...
"Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things." (NKJV)

“אֵל גִּבּוֹר”, is used for Jesus Christ in 9:6, and translated as "Mighty God"; and for Jehovah (the Father) in 10:21, with the SAME meaning! Two distinct Persons Who are MIGHTY GOD!

Well, if we are speaking about "gibôr", then both Jehovah and his son can be called "mighty" but in the Hebrew text Shad·daiʹ is used seven times along with ʼEl (God), forming the title “God Almighty.” (Gen 17:1, 28:3: 35:11; Exodus 6:3; Ezek 10:5)
In the other 41 occurrences it stands alone and is translated “the Almighty” or “the Almighty One.” Similar to ʼAdho·naiʹ (Sovereign Lord) and ʼElo·himʹ (God), Shad·daiʹ is in the plural to denote excellence. (Gen 49:25; Numbers 24:4; Psalm 68:14)

Its not about two sharing a description that only means 'strong or powerful'....the important point is that only one is called "ALMIGHTY" and that is the Father. This designation is NEVER applied to Jesus.

In Revelation 5:13, we read of Jesus Christ AND the Father, "I heard every created thing which is in heaven, on the earth, under the earth, on the sea, and everything in them, saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, AND to the Lamb be the Blessing, the Honor, the Glory, and the Might, forever and ever! Amen!”. The Greek, "τὸ κράτος", THE MIGHT, means ALMIGHTY, ALL of the MIGHT that the Father has, Jesus Christ also has! The same is with THE BLESSING, THE HONOR, THE GLORY. Where the use of "καί", AND, means that Jesus Christ is EQUAL with the Father, and due the SAME, "THE BLESSING, THE HONOR, THE GLORY, THE MIGHT", as the Father. ONLY as ALMIGHTY GOD, and YHWH, can this be true of Jesus Christ!

That might be the way you want to read it, but that is an assumption.....it is not what the entirety of scripture teaches about the application of these titles. The "might" is merely the power that both possess, but only one possesses the title "El Shad·daiʹ".....only one is supremely powerful. Who gave the power of the holy spirit to Jesus? Who resurrected Jesus after his sacrificial death? Who is it that Jesus worships even in heaven? (Rev 3:12)

Rev 5:13 says..."
"And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
“Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

You are reading into scripture what you want to see....
The Kingship is given to Jesus by "the Ancient of Days"...."The king of Eternity"....Jehovah himself. (Daniel 7:13-14)
Both are said to be 'sitting on the throne' because both exercise power and authority over the redeemed human race, and also over the angelic forces.....and both deserve 'blessing, honor and glory' for the roles that they have played in the outworking of God's purpose.

 

[Aunty Jane]

God cannot be divided up--He is One. So Jesus is a kind of lesser revelation of the one true God. But being divine he in no way is "less than God. He is simply a human revelation of God, and as such, it is the *revelation* of his humanity that is less than the revelation of God as Father. They are both the same God in different revelations, one reflecting God in human flesh, and the other reflecting God as the source of all divine revelation.

Where do the scriptures even say this? "A kind of lesser revelation of God"? Are you serious?
He calls himself only "the son of God"....so unless you can provide scripture where Jesus says he is in any way equal to his Father, I'd like to see it.
Jesus also says that his Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3)....his apostles collectively state that their "one God" is "the Father" (1 Cor 8:5-6)
Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the "image" of his God and calls him "the firstborn of all creation". Not the firstborn of human creation but of ALL creation, which includes the angelic sons of God.

You cannot have a "lesser god," or it is not God at all! Your doctrine, indicating Christ is a lesser god, is actually a weird form of polytheism, there being a lesser god and a greater God. This is hardly biblical.

You don't have to....."theos" in Greek does not only pertain to Jehovah. According to Strongs, the primary meaning of "theos" (god) is...
"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities". Both Jehovah and his son fit those descriptions.
In fact if the divine name had still been in usage, the son could never have been fused with his Father in godship.
John 1:1 would have read...."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Jehovah and the Word was divine."

If you know Greek then you will know that the definite article clearly identified the difference between Father and son in a single verse.
John 1:1....
"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."(Mounce Interlinear)

You see it quite clearly in this well known 'proof text' that proves just the opposite to what it is assumed to say...."HO THEOS" is "THE GOD" of the monotheistic Jews. Jesus is never called "ho theos" but just "theos" which gives him divine authority as a "mighty one" but never as "the Almighty".

The Church Fathers inherited the apostolic tradition and doctrine, and interpreted it in the language of the Roman Empire. This was necessary since the original covenant, the Law, had been given to the Jewish People in their Hebrew tongue. A change in cultures requires a change in language, and greater explanation to initiate new groups of people into what once was for a single culture and a single people.

The apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles was "already at work" in the first century....which means that when Jesus and his apostles were no longer around to keep things in order, the ones who headed the church did not keep the apostasy from growing and spreading so gradually, it engulfed the whole church.....it took a few hundred years to reach the right level of apathy and weakness that would allow foreign ideas to infiltrate to that degree, but true to form, the devil did what he had already accomplished in Judaism. (Matthew 23:13-15; Matt 15:7-9)

God didn't wait millennia to create the JWs to finally express the truth about Christ. It's preposterous to think this!

You are obviously not familiar with Daniel's prophesies?
He wrote about "the time of the end"...the times we are living in right now. It was foretold to be a time of refining and of re-calibrating of the faith which had been taken right off the rails by greedy and unscrupulous men in leadership positions in the early church.

Daniel was told....
"....shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” (Daniel 12:4)
So in 'the time of the end', knowledge would increase....who can deny that knowledge of anything is at our fingertips today more so than at any other time in history? There is no longer any excuse for ignorance.

God went on to say to Daniel....
“Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand."

So Daniel's prophesies were not to be understood until this time period, when it would all make sense.
It was at this time that God was going to "purify, whiten and refine" his worshippers. Only those who accepted the purification whitening and refining of their beliefs would be granted understanding......the "wicked", those who did not see the need for a spiritual cleansing, but chose to remain in their unclean state, would continue on without understanding.

Do you claim an inheritance of criticism of the Christian Church from earliest times? If so, do you even recognize the critical spirit that marks your tradition?

You should recognize from your biblical learning that this is not the Spirit of Christ. It is not evangelical, is not edifying, and does not glorify Christ.

On the contrary it is entirely Christ-like, because we too are at a crossroads with our faith, just as the Jews were in Jesus' day. Would the Jews remain attached to what Jesus exposed as a corrupt religious system......?or would they follow Jesus and go out to teach the people the truth about their God and the Savior he sent? All the persecution that Jesus and his disciples received was from those who claimed to worship the same God....do you see the correlation of the two time periods? The first appearance of the Christ, and his second one?

I say all this not to insult or offend you, but in the hope you will join true Christianity. It is not membership in a Christian denomination or cult. Rather, it is joining Jesus in spirit so that all those who likewise are one in spirit with Christ can be your brother and sister.

I am not trying to insult anyone either, but I came out of Christendom, and I saw first hand the hypocrisy of men who spoke lies and claimed that it was from the God of the Bible. Everything got all twisted out of shape....and the lies became their truth.

By studying the Bible very carefully I found the truth and I left that corrupt and fragmented institution behind....never to enter its doors again. The unifying spirit of the Christians in the world is the truth of God's word.....Christendom cannot determine what that truth is because God is not with them...if he was, they would be united all over the world holding one truth....all in agreement.
As Paul said....."I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (1 Cor 1:10)
Can this be said about the divided churches of Christendom?

Problems in the Christian Church need to be remedied--not condemned or ignored. We should expect there to be "sick Christians" in the Church. It should be our duty to aid those who "need a physician," not throw them out like reprobates!

There is just one problem with that scenario......a remedy never going to happen. Jesus said that he came, "not to bring peace, but a sword" that he came "to cause division" even within families, (Matthew 10:36; Luke 12:51-53) because the truth was at war with the corrupt teachings of the devil's weeds. The Christians had to separate from the Jews who continued to teach their version of God's word. Today it is Christendom who do not promote what is Bible truth.

Two things are inescapable.....'no one can come to the Father unless it is through the son'....but no one can come to the son without an invitation from his Father. That invitation is issued by the disciples of Jesus actively fulfilling 'the great commission'. God then "draws" those who respond to his truth. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20; John 6:44; 65)

"The good news of the Kingdom" is what they are told to preach....so please tell me what "the good news of the kingdom" is? Most people have no idea how to answer that most basic question. How would you answer it?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Why quote later Jewish sources when discussing the Messiah? They still don’t believe he came, and are still waiting....Jewish scripture is what we need to concentrate on, and what it was that the Jews were told to expect their Messiah to be.
All of the things mentioned in Isa 9:6-7 proved to be true, as explained in post #114.

The Jews would never have accepted that Messiah was God incarnate.....they tried to pin a charge of blasphemy on him for merely claiming to be “the son of God”. (John 10:31-36) Jesus never once claimed to be God Almighty.

Are you backtracking now? Seeing the harmony between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek is proof that both are inspired by the same author.....but only Jehovah is the Father, Jesus is his son and the holy spirit is the exercise of his great power.....given to whomever God wishes to grant it....or sent to wherever his purpose demands it.

No sorry...Jesus is never spoken of as a "father" to his disciples.....they are his "brothers". When he taught his disciples to pray he addressed Jehovah as "Our Father". He said to Mary Magdalene...
“Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” (John 20:17 NKJV)

Jesus is "begotten" but he needed a begetter, whom the Bible says is his Father....he did not beget himself.

Jesus is not the author of anything....he claimed nothing that he taught was his own, but all he taught came from his Father.
John 8:28...
"Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things." (NKJV)

Well, if we are speaking about "gibôr", then both Jehovah and his son can be called "mighty" but in the Hebrew text Shad·daiʹ is used seven times along with ʼEl (God), forming the title “God Almighty.” (Gen 17:1, 28:3: 35:11; Exodus 6:3; Ezek 10:5)
In the other 41 occurrences it stands alone and is translated “the Almighty” or “the Almighty One.” Similar to ʼAdho·naiʹ (Sovereign Lord) and ʼElo·himʹ (God), Shad·daiʹ is in the plural to denote excellence. (Gen 49:25; Numbers 24:4; Psalm 68:14)

Its not about two sharing a description that only means 'strong or powerful'....the important point is that only one is called "ALMIGHTY" and that is the Father. This designation is NEVER applied to Jesus.

That might be the way you want to read it, but that is an assumption.....it is not what the entirety of scripture teaches about the application of these titles. The "might" is merely the power that both possess, but only one possesses the title "El Shad·daiʹ".....only one is supremely powerful. Who gave the power of the holy spirit to Jesus? Who resurrected Jesus after his sacrificial death? Who is it that Jesus worships even in heaven? (Rev 3:12)

Rev 5:13 says..."
"And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
“Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

You are reading into scripture what you want to see....
The Kingship is given to Jesus by "the Ancient of Days"...."The king of Eternity"....Jehovah himself. (Daniel 7:13-14)
Both are said to be 'sitting on the throne' because both exercise power and authority over the redeemed human race, and also over the angelic forces.....and both deserve 'blessing, honor and glory' for the roles that they have played in the outworking of God's purpose.

same old UNBIBLICAL NONSENSE!!!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where do the scriptures even say this? "A kind of lesser revelation of God"? Are you serious?

Yes, of course. Why should I be otherwise? Doesn't it make any sense to you? You seem to indicate there are at least two gods, one THE God, and the other a lesser god. Why should you act so surprised when I say these aren't two gods, but rather, two different *revelations* of the same God?

He calls himself only "the son of God"....so unless you can provide scripture where Jesus says he is in any way equal to his Father, I'd like to see it.

I'm sure you've argued and debated all of the pertinent verses that Christians and JWs like to argue. But we don't need to. We're told from the start that God is "one." That means, any notion of two gods, one greater and one lesser, is inadmissible.

Jesus also says that his Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3)....his apostles collectively state that their "one God" is "the Father" (1 Cor 8:5-6)
Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the "image" of his God and calls him "the firstborn of all creation". Not the firstborn of human creation but of ALL creation, which includes the angelic sons of God.

This is not saying that only the Father is God, but that the Father is indeed the one God. This does not exclude the one God from being revealed in different personages, whether angelic appearances of God or the human appearance of God in Jesus.

For example, it is commonly understood that in the OT there are angelic revelations of God--they are God expressing himself in lesser persons who really are God, though in lesser forms. They are called "theophanies."

You see it quite clearly in this well known 'proof text' that proves just the opposite to what it is assumed to say...."HO THEOS" is "THE GOD" of the monotheistic Jews. Jesus is never called "ho theos" but just "theos" which gives him divine authority as a "mighty one" but never as "the Almighty".

God's appearance in lesser forms, such as angels and in Jesus, obviously will make reference to the Father and to the Son using different expressions. One is the Father, and the other is the Son.

One is God in His greatest form, as the source of all of His revelations. And the other is God in a lesser form, a particular revelation of God's personality. Describing the Son in a lesser form will use language consistent with that, but the differences do not describe two gods, but rather, a distinction in how God has revealed Himself.

Certainly we agree there is "one God," that He is *the* Almighty. Jesus has to be expressed as a lesser depiction of God, though not as a different god, because that is how God is expressing Himself. But that doesn't mean he is any less *the* one and only God.

It just means God is expressing in him not as "the Father," but as the Son. A revelation of God as both the Father and the Son simultaneously is confusing and makes no sense, if indeed God wishes to express Himself differently, as Father and Son, as originator of all revelation and as a specific human revelation.

The apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles was "already at work" in the first century....which means that when Jesus and his apostles were no longer around to keep things in order, the ones who headed the church did not keep the apostasy from growing and spreading so gradually, it engulfed the whole church.....it took a few hundred years to reach the right level of apathy and weakness that would allow foreign ideas to infiltrate to that degree, but true to form, the devil did what he had already accomplished in Judaism. (Matthew 23:13-15; Matt 15:7-9)

That is your own particular critical view of how things evolved from Apostles to Church Fathers. I see the Church Fathers explaining the Apostles' beliefs in a culture that had been saturated with various philosophical ideas. Explaining the truth in a "foreign language" is to be expected from leaders who were commissioned with the Gospel to all nations. It was part of their "job description."

You are obviously not familiar with Daniel's prophesies?

I know Daniel's prophecies *very well.*

He wrote about "the time of the end"...the times we are living in right now. It was foretold to be a time of refining and of re-calibrating of the faith which had been taken right off the rails by greedy and unscrupulous men in leadership positions in the early church...

So Daniel's prophesies were not to be understood until this time period, when it would all make sense.

The "time of the end" I believe to be a reference not to the "end of the age" but rather, to the end of Israel's covenant relationship with God. It would precede Israel's final national restoration.

The Prophets depicted a fallen Israel, who would come to the time of "their end." Their covenant would be broken again, as it had been broken before the captivities. All this would precede a final restoration of the nation.

The same lessons were being given to future nations, who have now embraced a covenant with Christ. Our nations also fall, as all nations do. This is inevitable, before final national restoration.

To come out from within fallen nations is not to be an occasion for dismissing those we have come out from! The Prophets remained prophets to their nation. Christians should also remain prophets to their own nations, no matter how far they have fallen. That's what Jesus did.

I am not trying to insult anyone either, but I came out of Christendom, and I saw first hand the hypocrisy of men who spoke lies and claimed that it was from the God of the Bible. Everything got all twisted out of shape....and the lies became their truth.

Then you should've indeed come out from corrupt, fallen churches and religious traditions. But you should continue to reach out to them, if even from afar, to try to stir them to reformation. As long as there is hope, we've been given a Gospel to reach out with the message of reform and grace.

By studying the Bible very carefully I found the truth and I left that corrupt and fragmented institution behind....never to enter its doors again. The unifying spirit of the Christians in the world is the truth of God's word.....Christendom cannot determine what that truth is because God is not with them...if he was, they would be united all over the world holding one truth....all in agreement.

One Christian Spirit does not necessarily unite flawed Christians and does not necessarily reform corrupt forms of Christianity. People do not have to obey God's Spirit once they've received it. It's a gift that brings life, but people can choose to live inconsistently with that life.

As Paul said....."I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (1 Cor 1:10)
Can this be said about the divided churches of Christendom?

Paul was saying this precisely because receiving God's Spirit does not guarantee Christians will remain in that Spirit. Quite frankly, they don't. And so, Paul was encouraging fidelity to the truth, knowing that it isn't always so, and needs to be constantly preached.

"The good news of the Kingdom" is what they are told to preach....so please tell me what "the good news of the kingdom" is? Most people have no idea how to answer that most basic question. How would you answer it?

The Gospel of the Kingdom concerns the promise of God's Kingdom coming with the return of the Son of Man in Dan 7. It is referred to by all the Prophets in the context of Israel who at that time were alone "God's People."

But Jesus knew his Gospel of the Kingdom would be expanded into all nations. And so, what he told Israel would apply, he knew, to the nations. The "good news" of Israel's future restoration would apply to Christian nations and to Christian individuals who would likewise experience restoration, after a long age of trouble and persecution.

The Kingdom of God is, of course, in heaven with God, who reigns over His Kingdom. But His Kingdom appears, in a temporal sense, on earth when nation-states adopt God's creeds, covenants, and word. That is, when King David adopted the Law of Moses as the standard for his kingdom, the Kingdom of God temporally merged with the kingdom of David. It was a form of theocracy.

In Jesus' time, he saw the covenant of God with Israel being broken, due to the sins of Israel. And so, Jesus said the Kingdom of God would be removed from the nation Israel, and given to other nation-states. We've seen since many Christian nations, even though they "descend into the abyss of disobedience" just as Israel did. All nations rise and fall.

The good news is that Jesus came to forgive fallen nations and fallen individuals. Putting our trust in him as *divine Savior" enables us to partake in God's Spirit so that we can live like Jesus did. Equally important we can recognize that we can adopt his *record of perfection* despite our *record of imperfection.* We just need to defer to him morally and spiritually in all things so that love shines through everything we do. This will be our assurance that we have both him and eternal life. That's the Gospel of the Kingdom.

 

[Wrangler]

This is not saying that only the Father is God, but that the Father is indeed the one God.

Yes it is. These are equivalent expressions. You are attempting to parse synonyms. The biggest proof of what you’re saying is not true, is found in the juxtaposition between God and Jesus, such as John chapter 14, verse one.

Believe in Donald. Believe also in me.

Such language is used when ‘me’ is not the same Being as ‘Donald.’ The same with John 14:1. Otherwise, one would simply say, believe in me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes it is. These are equivalent expressions. You are attempting to parse synonyms. The biggest proof of what you’re saying is not true, is found in the juxtaposition between God and Jesus, such as John chapter 14, verse one.

Believe in Donald. Believe also in me.

Such language is used when ‘me’ is not the same Being as ‘Donald.’ The same with John 14:1. Otherwise, one would simply say, believe in me.

Where your comparison fails is in your comparison between what God can do and what Man can do. Not the same thing.

Saying the Father is the "only God" is not the same thing as saying the one God cannot be other persons. God has, in history, revealed Himself in theophanies. This is generally recognized.

And so, God can reveal Himself both as a Divine Person from eternity and as a finite construct of His Person in time, in an angelic person or as a human person. Jesus was a human construct of the Divine Person, and such revealed God in two persons.

No need to limit God to only Himself as Father, as the source of all of His revelations. Since He is able to reveal Himself in finite personages, He can not only show Himself to be two persons, but He can also reveal Himself in an infinite number of persons.

But we are concerned with Christ being a divine person so that through him we may obtain God's forgiveness, righteousness, and spiritual life. The "Trinity" is the typical way Christians look at God's revelation as finite persons, as a spirit within the finite confines of space, and as a man within the finite confines of human existence.

 

[Wrangler]

Where your comparison fails is in your comparison between what God can do and what Man can do.

My analysis does not fail. Do not attempt to change the subject of juxtaposition. "Believe in Donald. Believe also in me" The only reason our Lord would say this is to differentiate himself from the 1st Being.

This is how language is used. One would simply say, "Give me a copy." No one would say referring to themselves, "Give Donald a copy. Make a copy also for me." If one wanted 2 copies they would just say so. No one would say "Give a copy to me, myself and I." For it would be confusing. Do you want 1 or 3 copies?

God so loved the world that he came incarnate to the world.

No. It says God gave his only son. Such juxtaposition is powerful evidence there are 2 Beings involved. Such juxtaposition is throughout the Bible. Acts 2:36 states that God made Jesus, both lord and savior. If the text was referring to God, it would not switch from one to the other. It would read God made himself both lord and savior.

Romans 10:9 makes similar use of language. You must believe one Being is lord and another Being raised the 1st being from the dead. Otherwise it would say Being A is lord and raised hisself from the dead. See what I mean?

 

[Randy Kluth]

My analysis does not fail. Do not attempt to change the subject of juxtaposition. "Believe in Donald. Believe also in me" The only reason our Lord would say this is to differentiate himself from the 1st Being.

This is how language is used. One would simply say, "Give me a copy." No one would say referring to themselves, "Give Donald a copy. Make a copy also for me." If one wanted 2 copies they would just say so. No one would say "Give a copy to me, myself and I." For it would be confusing. Do you want 1 or 3 copies?

God so loved the world that he came incarnate to the world.

No. It says God gave his only son. Such juxtaposition is powerful evidence there are 2 Beings involved. Such juxtaposition is throughout the Bible. Acts 2:36 states that God made Jesus, both lord and savior. If the text was referring to God, it would not switch from one to the other. It would read God made himself both lord and savior.

Romans 10:9 makes similar use of language. You must believe one Being is lord and another Being raised the 1st being from the dead. Otherwise it would say Being A is lord and raised hisself from the dead. See what I mean?

You see it a language issue. I see it a matter of what God can or cannot do. I understand, and disagree.

The critical element to me is not how we view the language--language can be a very mixed up science. What matters most to me is what we must believe to enter into a genuine spiritual relationship with God such that we can live as Christ did. If you can do this, power to you!

 

[Wrangler]

You see it a language issue.... What matters most to me is what we must believe to enter into a genuine spiritual relationship with God such that we can live as Christ did. If you can do this, power to you!

Does it make sense to you that God has a God?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Does it make sense to you that God has a God?

No, of course not. I understand very well the language issue and the concern you express. I think God has put Christians in a difficult position, having to believe in things that extend well beyond our ability to comprehend. But such is the relationship between an infinite Being and us, who are no more than "insects" to God.

Identifying Jesus as God is the "language problem." It appears more normal to identify Jesus as a divine "Son of God" because when we use the word "God" we most often are referring to Him as Father, or "before Man." To say that Jesus is God in His role as "Father" would be inconsistent with him being referred to as the "Son," who by definition is an extension from the Father.

So when we speak of Jesus' Deity, we must view God as a lesser revelation of God, which I find truer than identifying the Father and the Son as if a single personality. That clearly would be inconsistent or irrational.

Which personality are we referring to when we refer to Jesus as "God?" Are we referring to him exclusively as a Person existing before creation, or are we referring to him as God revealed in time?

Can two personalities be the same eternal God? Can something from eternity be the same divine Being as one appearing in time? For God I think this is certainly possible .

"The Word became flesh." That is, the eternal God appeared in time.

 

[Wrangler]

Identifying Jesus as God is the "language problem."

It is not language but the idea that is a problem. Nonsense is nonsense in any language. That's why the question of whether it makes sense for God to have a God crystalizes that it is not the language problem but the idea that is the problem.

There are 4 death nails against this idea, which have to be violated at every turn:
1. Definition
2. Logic
3. Language Usage
4. Explicit Scripture

I do believe you are starting with the flawed idea and then attempting to justify it but find no viable means.

 

[strepho]

Zechariah chapter 14. Those who won't give up their traditions of men during millennium, will go with satan into lake of fire. Those who declare satan their king will go into lake of fire. Revelation chapter 20 and zechariah chapter 14. The mormons believe Jesus was crucified on a Stake, not a cross. Jehovah witnesses dont believe Jesus was born in flesh and resurrection. Psychology and transcendental meditation come from the east, like buddha or hindu. It will be only true worship of God during millennium. False religion will not be tolerated. Get the picture.