• Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No Robert. I ain't got it in the way you'd like to think. I don't think you are actually listening to the information being freely offered you.
They will be lost, because they reject the truth:

Joh_8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

Joh_8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.​

"... Another dangerous error is the doctrine that denies the deity of Christ, claiming that He had no existence before His advent to this world. This theory is received with favor by a large class who profess to believe the Bible; yet it directly contradicts the plainest statements of our Saviour concerning His relationship with the Father, His divine character, and His pre-existence. It cannot be entertained without the most unwarranted wresting of the Scriptures. It not only lowers man's conceptions of the work of redemption, but undermines faith in the Bible as a revelation from God. While this renders it the more dangerous, it makes it also harder to meet. If men reject the testimony of the inspired Scriptures concerning the deity of Christ, it is in vain to argue the point with them; for no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14. None who hold this error can have a true conception of the character or the mission of Christ, or of the great plan of God for man's redemption. ..." {GC 524.2}
Robert is not born again from above. He is still, very much so, a natural man. He cannot receive these things until he sees that he needs to be born again by the Holy Ghost, whom he denies as a Person, and as long as he does that, he shall remain lost, even though he has certain knowledge of the scriptures (but so does the devil). All the scriptures thrown at him on this subject, will not avail, until he is born from Heaven above. It will only harden his heart as Pharaoh. Therefore, the only thing that can be done to one that has no ears to hear, nor eyes to see, being unwilling, is to combat his sad (for he will die in his sins) error as Moses against Jannes and Jambres.​
 
Last edited:

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You got it backlit! Jesus is subjected to his Father, but only to Him.
As a son of earth is to their earthly father in nature humanity, so too is the Son of the Father in nature Deity. They are hierarchical in relationship, as Son to Father, Father to Son, yet both eternal Deity in nature.

In earthly temporal, As a duck begets a duck. A cat begets a cat. Kind begets kind, and Like begets like.

In Heavenly eternal, The Father has His only begotten Son.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brakelite

GerhardEbersoehn

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
6,308
575
113
Johannesburg
www.biblestudents.co.za
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Oh sure thing. I am most serious about sharing what I believe and why. I love the truth as it is written in the word of God. I love God, in a way that sometimes makes me sad because I feel that I haven't done enough (or feels insignificant) to express that love for what God did for me. It is not about earning that love from God, but an owing of love.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify this point? Are you speaking of the historical aspects (like creation, flood, Babylon, Medo-Persia, etc) or future ones (7 last plagues, etc), or the whole in general? From my understanding of scripture, it accurately and precisely records many events to even specific days in some instances.

I am not following. Maybe I can ask you something, as I have attempted to ask other WTS members (can I use JW for short, or what do you prefer) and I never really received an specific answer due to various reasons.

I have some questions. It concerns the time prophecies as understood by the WTS/JW org. I would like to cite from their common books, which I have here in front of me, and then ask a few questions.

View attachment 15809

Question 01 - Is this timelime (picture) accurately representing the WTS/JW prophetic timeline as understood in their source materials?


Question 02 - Are the following statements accurate and perfect quotations from "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy":


In regards the WTS/JW timeline above, the '2,520' it is written in Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy:

PADP, page 96 reads, "... [28] Since the "seven times" are prophetic, we must apply to the 2,520 days the Scriptural rule: "A day for a year." This rule is set out in a prophecy regarding the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. (Ezekiel 4:6,7 compare Numbers 14:34.) ..."
In regards the WTS/JW timeline above, the '2,300' it is written in Pay Attention To Daniel' Prophecy:

PADP, page 177 reads, "... The 2,300 days constitute a prophetic period. Hence, a prophetic year of 360 days is involved. (Revelation 11:2,3, 12:6,14) This 2,300 days, then, would amount to 6 years, 4 months and 20 days. ..."
Question 03 - If Questions 01 and 02 are answered in the affirmative ('Yes'), then How can the WTS/JW say that the '2,520' of Daniel 4, according to their theology, needs to have the 'day for a year' principle, as cited, applied which makes for 2,520 natural years, and when it comes to the '2,300' of Daniel 8:14, which the WTS/JW org. say "constitute a prophetic period", and not apply the same rule therein, as done to the '2,520' which are the "prophetic" "seven times"? (This question is asking about consistency in application of said "Scriptural rule" in WTS.JW theology)

Question 04 - According to WTS/JW theology/doctrines, can anyone provide sourced documentation (available to be read online, PDF, etc) on what the WTS/JW org teaches on the following time prophecies (or if they are time prophecies at all), when they occurred, or will occur:


Daniel 11:14 (KJB) - "in those times"
Daniel 11:24 (KJB) - "even for a time"
Daniel 11:40 (KJB) - "at the time of the end"
Revelation 2:10 (KJB) - "tribulation ten days"
Revelation 3:10 (KJB) - "the hour of temptation"
Revelation 8:1 (KJB) - "about the space of half an hour"
Revelation 9:5,6,10 (KJB) - "five months", "those days", "five months"
Revelation 9:15 (KJB) - "an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year"
Revelation 10:6 (KJB) - "that there should be time no longer"
Revelation 11:9,11 (KJB) - "three days and an half"
Revelation 17:12 (KJB) - "one hour"

Also, are the times of Revelation 11:2,3, 12:6,14, 13:5, differing or the same timeframes as found in Daniel 7:25, 12:7 (please expound briefly with source citation)?
Question 05 - Why does the WTS/JW timeline (above), begin the 7 heads of Revelation 17 with [1] "Egypt" and [2] "Assyria" (PADP, page 165), rather than Babylon?

I am most interested in obtaining these answers. I have been trying to find out for years on at least one of these (like Q4).

I would agree that we are in the final stages of this earth's history. WWI for me is simply part of Matthew 24:6; Mark 13:7.

Yes and no from my part. I believe we are in the last generation, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with WWI as you understand. I do believe that Jesus' second advent is near.

Ok. I just wanted to discuss some of the details, and if you find anything in my timeline that needs correction to help me know it, as I would rather not have any error, and presently do not see any in that which I have shared. I have tried to accurately give the WTS timeline, and do desire your input, in case I missed anything, and would like to add the further information if possible from answers to my question 4.

I have an abbreviation for this BS
 

Robert Gwin

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2021
6,888
1,587
113
69
Central Il
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No Robert. I ain't got it in the way you'd like to think. I don't think you are actually listening to the information being freely offered you.

You are correct sir, I always believe the Bible over peoples opinions 1 Cor 11:3. Believe it or not.
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,557
6,410
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You are correct sir, I always believe the Bible over peoples opinions 1 Cor 11:3. Believe it or not.
ReC's last post to you above #182 is entirely biblical. I'm not surprised you are ignoring it because it entirely negates your church's doctrine that Christ is not deity and equal to the Father in all things except rank.
 

Robert Gwin

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2021
6,888
1,587
113
69
Central Il
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As a son of earth is to their earthly father in nature humanity, so too is the Son of the Father in nature Deity. They are hierarchical in relationship, as Son to Father, Father to Son, yet both eternal Deity in nature.

In earthly temporal, As a duck begets a duck. A cat begets a cat. Kind begets kind, and Like begets like.

In Heavenly eternal, The Father has His only begotten Son.

Would you be so kind as to define "only begotten Son" sir?
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,789
2,521
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There was a statement made on the matters of "covenants" which was stated as,

"Moses made it clear in a Deuteronomy 5 that their father’s nor anyone else had the law and ten commands before then:" [citation reference] [Deuteronomy 5:2-22, along with Exodus 31:13, was given in evidence, with Deuteronomy 5:3,15; Exodus 31:13 being specifically highlighted]

"... Notice that after he says that only they and no one before them had ever been given what Moses was giving them, He gave them the Ten Commandments: ...

... Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. ..."​

The claim is, by this participant, that the "Ten Commandments" are the "this covenant" that God had made with the peoples (Moses and 'Israel' (physical descendants of Jacob)), and that this (or these Ten Commandments) is/are the 'old covenant'.

A question we can ask, Is the statement true, based upon the word of God, and the context of Deuteronomy 5 (as is cited)?

Let's take a look.

Does Deuteronomy 5:3 explicitly state that the "this covenant" is anywhere the exact "Ten Commandments"?

No.

This means that some people "think" that it does by implication, being so near to the Ten Commandments being re-iterated by Moses.

What is the "this covenant" that Moses is speaking about in Deuteronomy 5? It is found referred to in vs 2.

Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.​

Please notice, that the "covenant" referred to, was "made" with the peoples ("us") "in" (not near, or around) "Horeb".

Where can we find such an event, of a "covenant" "made" "in" "Horeb"/"Sinai" that is original? It is found in Exodus 19 & 24.

Exodus 19:12 "... that ye go not up into the mount, ..."

Exo 24:1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.
Exo 24:2 And Moses alone shall come near the LORD: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him.
Exo 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
Exo 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Exo 24:5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
Exo 24:6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Exo 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Exo 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Exo 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
Exo 24:12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Exo 24:13 And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.
Exo 24:14 And he said unto the elders, Tarry ye here for us, until we come again unto you: and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: if any man have any matters to do, let him come unto them.
Exo 24:15 And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount.
Exo 24:16 And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
Exo 24:17 And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
Exo 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
What then is the "this covenant" that was not made with any of their ancestors?

It is found in Exodus 19:3-9, 24:1-11.

The "this covenant" is not the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were not spoken aloud by the LORD in awesome majesty, until 3 days later (Exodus 19:11,16). Rather, it is the "... if ... then ... and ..." (Exodus 19:5-6) of the LORD, and the agreement of the elders of the people that said, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." (Exodus 19:8), "All the words which the LORD hath said will we do." (Exodus 24:3).

There was never anywhere before Mt. Sinai/Horeb that the LORD had ever made such an arrangement (covenant) or agreement with the Patriarchs. It was unique with Moses and the peoples of Jacob/'Israel'.

The Ten Commandments were already known long before Mt. Sinai. For instance, see Exodus 16 in which God spake of the Sabbath of the LORD, the 7th Day.

Exo 16:26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.
Exo 16:27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
Exo_16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
Each of the other of the Ten Commandments may also be seen long before Mt. Sinai, upon request.

Really if you want to get technical, a certain amount of knowledge of God's laws were known by Cain and Abel, for how did Abel know that his sacrifice would be accepted? How did he know to do that to please God in that time, for it isn't written that God commanded that back then?

It becomes obvious with a bit of deeper thought in Bible study, that Christ's lineage from Adam was given knowledge of many of God's laws long before any of the Gentile nations knew, and even before Moses.

So really, we cannot be certain that God had not already given His elect knowledge of His law, but just had not yet made them subject to a covenant yet.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Would you be so kind as to define "only begotten Son" sir?
I did in the context.

The words "only begotten" translate from the koine Greek monogene (μονογενη; John 3:16), and it means "only one of the same nature (genes)", and has nothing to do with time, but deals with nature only. The very words have no definition which includes time as an element inherently.

The Father has always been "the Father", eternally, everlastingly.

The Son has always been "the Son", eternally, everlastingly.

Then the next question that is asked is, what about John 17:3?

I already showed, from the texts of scripture what that means. It doesn't mean that the Father is the only JEHOVAH (LORD). It means, in context that the Father is the "monon alethinon theon", and the word "alethinon" means 'true', which in context means "underived in nature" (which links to axiom, which links to true, see [1], [2]), for the Son is the "monogene", the "theos [h]en o logos" (John 1:1c) of "ton theon" (John 1:1b). In other words, Jesus uses the phrase "monon alethinon theon" to refer to the Father's eternal nature as Deity, of whom the Son is the only one who shares that same eternal nature of the Father (again the nature of the Holy Ghost/Spirit is not given in scripture, and silence is golden on this, for we cannot add, neither take away from the word of God without violation to the texts). In other words, Jesus in John 17:3 is stating (by using word substitution, the ways of God being equal) that He Himself (the Son) is the only true Son by nature of the Father, whose nature the Son shares. The Father does not have His nature from the Son, but the Son from the Father, and thus their hierarchical relationship to one another, yet both sitting upon the same throne on equal level, yet the Son sits at the Father's right hand, and not the Father sitting at the Son's right hand.

Therefore, Jesus was not merely claiming to be a "son of God" like the angels, or Adam, or even the Jews were, but claiming that which none in creation can claim, to be "equal" in eternal nature to the Father, and thus has the right to sit at the Father's right hand on the Throne of eternal Deity with the Father.

The Father is in nature eternal Deity, the "only "true" God" (monon alethinon theon, God, ton theon, John 1:1b)

The Son (being the "express image" of the Father's Person) has the eternal nature (Deity) of the Father, being the "only begotten" (monogenes, referring to nature, not time; (God, theos [h]en o logos, John 1:1c)) of the Father.
 
Last edited:

Robert Gwin

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2021
6,888
1,587
113
69
Central Il
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ReC's last post to you above #182 is entirely biblical. I'm not surprised you are ignoring it because it entirely negates your church's doctrine that Christ is not deity and equal to the Father in all things except rank.

Any idea what Christ means Backlit?
 

Robert Gwin

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2021
6,888
1,587
113
69
Central Il
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I did in the context.

The words "only begotten" translate from the koine Greek monogene (μονογενη; John 3:16), and it means "only one of the same nature (genes)", and has nothing to do with time, but deals with nature only. The very words have no definition which includes time as an element inherently.

The Father has always been "the Father", eternally, everlastingly.

The Son has always been "the Son", eternally, everlastingly.

Then the next question that is asked is, what about John 17:3?

I already showed, from the texts of scripture what that means. It doesn't mean that the Father is the only JEHOVAH (LORD). It means, in context that the Father is the "monon alethinon theon", and the word "alethinon" means 'true', which in context means "underived in nature" (which links to axiom, which links to true, see [1], [2]), for the Son is the "monogene", the "theos [h]en o logos" (John 1:1c) of "ton theon" (John 1:1b). In other words, Jesus uses the phrase "monon alethinon theon" to refer to the Father's eternal nature as Deity, of whom the Son is the only one who shares that same eternal nature of the Father (again the nature of the Holy Ghost/Spirit is not given in scripture, and silence is golden on this, for we cannot add, neither take away from the word of God without violation to the texts). In other words, Jesus in John 17:3 is stating (by using word substitution, the ways of God being equal) that He Himself (the Son) is the only true Son by nature of the Father, whose nature the Son shares. The Father does not have His nature from the Son, but the Son from the Father, and thus their hierarchical relationship to one another, yet both sitting upon the same throne on equal level, yet the Son sits at the Father's right hand, and not the Father sitting at the Son's right hand.

Therefore, Jesus was not merely claiming to be a "son of God" like the angels, or Adam, or even the Jews were, but claiming that which none in creation can claim, to be "equal" in eternal nature to the Father, and thus has the right to sit at the Father's right hand on the Throne of eternal Deity with the Father.

The Father is in nature eternal Deity, the "only "true" God" (monon alethinon theon, God, ton theon, John 1:1b)

The Son (being the "express image" of the Father's Person) has the eternal nature (Deity) of the Father, being the "only begotten" (monogenes, referring to nature, not time; (God, theos [h]en o logos, John 1:1c)) of the Father.

We teach that Jesus is given that term as he was the first creation of Jehovah, the only creation to be created solely by Jehovah's hands. Why is this the case? Because only Jehovah existed, He alone had no beginning. God created many sons, but only Jesus was made exclusively by Him, whereas all of Jehovah's other creations were done by and through Jesus. That is our definition of only begotten.