A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[Wrangler]

I'll take Thomas' word over yours any day.

You are taking Thomas' words - out of context! All you got is eisegesis. "My" landlord is not everyone's landlord. You know this. You carry on the self-deception, anyway.

 

[Jack]

You are taking Thomas' words - out of context!

The Bible is the context. Jesus is God the Creator.

Col 1 By Jesus all things were created.

All you got is eisegesis. "My" landlord is not everyone's landlord. You know this.

I didn't interpret anything. You are! You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing!

You carry on the self-deception, anyway.

So your argument is, 'the Bible doesn't mean what it says, it means what I say it means'. Just like JW's!

I'll stick with the LITERAL Christian Bible. If you don't believe Jesus is THE Savior you're heading for Hell fire. Do you even believe in Hell?

Jeremiah 17
10 　I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.
Revelation 2
'These things says the Son of God, … 23 　I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Jesus is the LORD God.

 

[marks]

So the meaning of “theos” is not what you claim. Calling someone “theos” isn’t necessarily calling them Yahweh….

Um . . . that's not what I've claimed. You are sidestepping my question.

You have a God and a demi-god apparently, which makes you polythiestic, which makes you false.

Much love!

 

[marks]

When the symbolic mountain splits,

Symbolic, no, I'm sorry. This is narrative prophecy.

Denying it's reality is no way to interpret the Bible.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No Jew would ever have accepted a Messiah who claimed to be God. That would have been blasphemy.

That IS why they killed Him, so yes, they did reject Him for making Himself equal with God.

Apparently you don’t read our replies….we acknowledge ONE God…..Yahweh.

Actually, I have been reading the various replies. You claim Jesus is "a god", but you claim only one God, therefore, Either Jesus is that one true God, or you have more than one God. This is simple arithmatic. Of Jesus is a false god. That's your other option.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

I didn't interpret anything. You are!

Sure you are! You are taking Thomas' personal comment to be a universal truth. That's eisegesis.

 

[Wrangler]

Um . . . that's not what I've claimed. You are sidestepping my question.

You have a God and a demi-god apparently, which makes you polythiestic, which makes you false.

Marks. AJ is the exact opposite of one who side steps. More than almost anyone else here, she gives comprehensive answers.

And I don't know how you can repeat your claim that she (JW) have a God and a demi-god after what she wrote. You are not merely ignorant; you are willfully ignorant.

It's fine if you do not agree with us on the point under discussion but it is in bad form to misrepresent what our position is.

 

[Jack]

Sure you are! You are taking Thomas' personal comment to be a universal truth. That's eisegesis.

So you admit Thomas called Jesus "my God". Good for you. Jesus taught Thomas personally.

 

[Jack]

Marks. AJ is the exact opposite of one who side steps. More than almost anyone else here, she gives comprehensive answers.

And I don't know how you can repeat your claim that she (JW) have a God and a demi-god after what she wrote. You are not merely ignorant; you are willfully ignorant.

It's fine if you do not agree with us on the point under discussion but it is in bad form to misrepresent what our position is.

A JW cheerleader! No surprise.

 

[marks]

Marks. AJ is the exact opposite of one who side steps. More than almost anyone else here, she gives comprehensive answers.

And I don't know how you can repeat your claim that she (JW) have a God and a demi-god after what she wrote. You are not merely ignorant; you are willfully ignorant.

It's fine if you do not agree with us on the point under discussion but it is in bad form to misrepresent what our position is.

Well . . . she side-stepped me. So there you go.

It's in the meaning of theos. It's not an adjective, its a nominative noun. So either Jesus is God, or Jesus is a god, and in either case, Houston, we have a problem.

Willfully ignorant? Your personal comments are a part of why I mostly have you on ignore, I just happened to see this. And like Jesus said, wisdom is justified by her children.

And I don't know what you call pulling out this nonsense that I'm claiming Theos = YHWH, that ridiculous.

So who is misrepresenting whom?

Much love!

 

[marks]

When the symbolic mountain splits, half to the north and half to the south, Yahweh’s feet remain set upon both mountains. “A very great valley” comes into existence beneath his feet. This symbolic valley represents divine protection, by which Jehovah’s servants find safety under his universal sovereignty and his Son’s Messianic Kingdom. God will make sure that pure worship will never be snuffed out, no matter how wicked human society becomes.
Just because Jesus preached on the Mount of Olives, doesn’t mean that he is Yahweh.

Zechariah 14:1-5 KJV
1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5) And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah

Things like this show us this is exactly how it presents itself, as a narrative prophecy, a foretelling of things that will happen as they are foretold. What remains is that we either accept or reject it's saying.

YHWH shall stand on the Mount of Olives.

Acts 1:11 KJV
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Jesus ascended bodily from the Mount of Olives into heaven. He will return in like manner. Bodily, out of heaven, to the earth.

Matthew 24:30 KJV
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Job 19:25-27 KJV
25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

So you see this is found in much more than whether Jesus once stood on the Mount of Olives.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Suddenly I'm wondering . . .

Isn't the Watchtower doctrine that Michael became Jesus, and then became Michael again?

Can someone confirm that? Maybe I'm getting mixed up.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Sure you're not JW? You're quite evasive of the Scriptures I posted. I'll take Thomas' word over yours any day. Jesus taught Thomas. Who 'taught' you?

Ditto!

If Jesus were not God, and did not refuse Thomas' worship, that would be sin. Just like the angel in the Revelation. And to ascribe Thomas' words as if he were using "My Lord and My God" as though it were the ancient version of the modern day "OMG", that's some of the poorest Biblical interpretation I can imagine.

Regarding who is and is not JW,

It's fine if you do not agree with us on the point under discussion but it is in bad form to misrepresent what our position is.

"our position", so apparently Wrangler is JW.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Suddenly I'm wondering . . .

Isn't the Watchtower doctrine that Michael became Jesus, and then became Michael again?

Can someone confirm that? Maybe I'm getting mixed up.

Much love!

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250

Our Readers Ask . . .


Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?


▪ Put simply, the answer is yes.

So why are we even discussing whether Jesus is God? Considering JW's don't actually believe Jesus is Jesus.

From the same link:

So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.

Meanwhile,

Revelation 1:4-5 KJV
4) John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Jesus, telling the truth. Jesus, not Michael, pretending to be Jesus, perpetuating a lie.

Much love!

 

[Aunty Jane]

Um . . . that's not what I've claimed. You are sidestepping my question.

You have a God and a demi-god apparently, which makes you polythiestic, which makes you false.

I have never declared Jesus to be a demi-god.....
My reply to you was....

“You claim to know Greek and yet you fail to acknowledge what the word “theos” actually means in Greek rather than how it is understood in English.

Strongs gives the primary definition of “theos” (god) as …..

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”

So the meaning of “theos” is not what you claim. Calling someone “theos” isn’t necessarily calling them Yahweh….even satan is called “theos”. Judges in Israel were called “gods” by Yahweh himself. They were divinely authorized as God’s representative. Jesus too was Yahweh’s representative on earth. He only ever said he was God’s son….never that he was Almighty God in human form. No Jew would ever have accepted a Messiah who claimed to be God. That would have been blasphemy.”

That IS why they killed Him, so yes, they did reject Him for making Himself equal with God.

Reading John 10:31-36 in Greek, makes it evident that Jesus was not calling himself “God” (Almighty, Yahweh) because the definite article is missing there, as I have already shown you. If Yahweh himself can call human judges “gods” because they represented him, call Jesus what he called himself “the son of ho theos”.... (Yahweh)

You read very selectively, only focusing on what you want my words to say....I am a Bible student of many years, and research is my favorite thing to do......don’t put words in my mouth...especially not your words because what you believe is not scriptural in any way.

Actually, I have been reading the various replies. You claim Jesus is "a god", but you claim only one God, therefore, Either Jesus is that one true God, or you have more than one God. This is simple arithmatic. Of Jesus is a false god. That's your other option.

You see what you did there....? You seem to have very little comprehension of anything that is outside of your own indoctrination......you gave me two options.....your options. This is not an “either/or” scenario.
The simple arithmetic is that God is one, not three. The simple truth is that God has a son who is “only begotten”. He was begotten long before anything or anyone else existed according to the apostle Paul.
Colossians 1:15-17 is a concise and accurate statement.....read it.
Speaking about Jesus he said....
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (KJV)

What does this tell us? That the son is the “image of the invisible God”. What is an “image”? If I show someone a photograph of my father, is that image my father, or does it simply reflect what he looks like?

And if he is the “firstborn of every creature”....what is a creature? It is a living entity, of which the pre-human Jesus was the “firstborn”.
As Revelation 3:14 says, Jesus addresses the seven congregation and says.....
“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God”.
He calls himself the “beginning of God’s creation”.

All of creation came “through” the agency of God’s “firstborn”. This includes the angels as he is their Commander. He is NOT the Creator and never once does scripture tell us that Father and son are equals in any way. The son, like all other creation, is a “servant” to his God and Father. (Acts 4:30)
Jesus always acknowledged his Father’s position as “the only true God” (John 17:3)

In answer to your other question.....
As commander of the angelic forces, we do believe that the pre-human Jesus is Michael the Archangel. There is only one archangel and he is “the great prince” spoken about in Daniel, who stands in behalf of God’s people...and always has.
Nothing prevents him from being Michael as he has many names in the service of his God. Each name is attached to the role he is playing. On his return to heaven he now has a new name. (Rev 3:12)

 

[marks]

“You claim to know Greek and yet you fail to acknowledge what the word “theos” actually means in Greek rather than how it is understood in English.

Once again, I've never said that Theos = YHWH. Theos is the word for God/god.

Maybe review my posts?

Much love!

 

[Jack]

I have never declared Jesus to be a demi-god.....
My reply to you was....

“You claim to know Greek and yet you fail to acknowledge what the word “theos” actually means in Greek rather than how it is understood in English.

Strongs gives the primary definition of “theos” (god) as …..

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”

So the meaning of “theos” is not what you claim. Calling someone “theos” isn’t necessarily calling them Yahweh….even satan is called “theos”. Judges in Israel were called “gods” by Yahweh himself. They were divinely authorized as God’s representative. Jesus too was Yahweh’s representative on earth. He only ever said he was God’s son….never that he was Almighty God in human form. No Jew would ever have accepted a Messiah who claimed to be God. That would have been blasphemy.”

Reading John 10:31-36 in Greek, makes it evident that Jesus was not calling himself “God” (Almighty, Yahweh) because the definite article is missing there, as I have already shown you. If Yahweh himself can call human judges “gods” because they represented him, call Jesus what he called himself “the son of ho theos”.... (Yahweh)

You read very selectively, only focusing on what you want my words to say....I am a Bible student of many years, and research is my favorite thing to do......don’t put words in my mouth...especially not your words because what you believe is not scriptural in any way.

You see what you did there....? You seem to have very little comprehension of anything that is outside of your own indoctrination......you gave me two options.....your options. This is not an “either/or” scenario.
The simple arithmetic is that God is one, not three. The simple truth is that God has a son who is “only begotten”. He was begotten long before anything or anyone else existed according to the apostle Paul.
Colossians 1:15-17 is a concise and accurate statement.....read it.
Speaking about Jesus he said....
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (KJV)

What does this tell us? That the son is the “image of the invisible God”. What is an “image”? If I show someone a photograph of my father, is that image my father, or does it simply reflect what he looks like?

And if he is the “firstborn of every creature”....what is a creature? It is a living entity, of which the pre-human Jesus was the “firstborn”.
As Revelation 3:14 says, Jesus addresses the seven congregation and says.....
“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God”.
He calls himself the “beginning of God’s creation”.

All of creation came “through” the agency of God’s “firstborn”. This includes the angels as he is their Commander. He is NOT the Creator and never once does scripture tell us that Father and son are equals in any way. The son, like all other creation, is a “servant” to his God and Father. (Acts 4:30)
Jesus always acknowledged his Father’s position as “the only true God” (John 17:3)

In answer to your other question.....
As commander of the angelic forces, we do believe that the pre-human Jesus is Michael the Archangel. There is only one archangel and he is “the great prince” spoken about in Daniel, who stands in behalf of God’s people...and always has.
Nothing prevents him from being Michael as he has many names in the service of his God. Each name is attached to the role he is playing. On his return to heaven he now has a new name. (Rev 3:12)

Then Who is this male child called "Mighty God"?

Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Ditto!

If Jesus were not God, and did not refuse Thomas' worship, that would be sin. Just like the angel in the Revelation. And to ascribe Thomas' words as if he were using "My Lord and My God" as though it were the ancient version of the modern day "OMG", that's some of the poorest Biblical interpretation I can imagine.

Thomas was not wrong in declaring his Lord as a ‘divine mighty one’, which is what “theos” means in Greek.
All Greek gods had a name, but the one God of the Jews was nameless when the NT was penned because the Jews had superstitiously eliminated it from their speech. Therefore there was only one way to identify Yahweh by calling him “ho theos” (THE God).
If Thomas was one of the 12, he did not disagree with their collective statement at 1 Cor 8:5-6...

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (KJV)

The apostles knew who their God and Father was....and it wasn’t their Lord Jesus.

Regarding who is and is not JW, ......
"our position", so apparently Wrangler is JW.

You seem to think that JW’s are the only ones who reject the trinity.....we are not. The “our” in @Wrangler’s statement includes all who deny that Jesus is anything but what he called himself.....”the son of God”.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Maybe review my posts?

LOL....now that made me laugh.
Maybe you should review mine....

 

[marks]

Reading John 10:31-36 in Greek, makes it evident that Jesus was not calling himself “God” (Almighty, Yahweh) because the definite article is missing there, as I have already shown you. If Yahweh himself can call human judges “gods” because they represented him, call Jesus what he called himself “the son of ho theos”.... (Yahweh)

It sounds to me that you don't really understand the Koine Greek rules for articles. There were many statements Jesus made, not just this one.

Anyway, we have the testimony of the Jews that they understood Jesus,

John 10:33 KJV
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

It's not blasphemy to call yourself a judge, or a despot. The blasphemy is calling yourself God.

What really set them off was when He said that He exists now before Abraham existed then, showing His eternal existance. Present existance prior to someone's historical existance. A real time bender! Only an eternal being could say that in truth.

You read very selectively, only focusing on what you want my words to say....

You seem to have very little comprehension of anything that is outside of your own indoctrination

Never mind, I have no taste anymore for this kind of conversation. You needn't reply to my posts, I'll not be replying to yours.

Much love!