For those who think Christ is not God.

[Waiting on him]

There is only one God with three parts. Just as we ourselves are made in his image of body mind and spirit. The JWs believe that Jesus was just a god and have altered their bibles accordingly.

What’s my part? Or do I have no part?

 

[Johann]

With your reasoning I am God.

וְעֵינֵינוּ נְשׂוּאוֹת אֶל־הַתִּקְוָה הַטּוֹבָה לְעֵת יִגָּלֶה כְבוֹד הָאֱלֹהִים הַגָּדוֹל וְיֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ מוֹשִׁיעֵינוּ׃

Nothing wrong with the Holy Spirit's kratos friend, I am nothing and have nothing to boast about, what I do have is two brothers here watching my back.
J.

 

[Johann]

What’s my part? Or do I have no part?

Good question, do you have a witness?
J.

 

[Johann]

I could are less to much scripture that declares Christ to be the first born of the first century creation.

"I could are less?"
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Good question, do you have a witness?
J.

Sure I do, my brother… Jesus.

 

[Waiting on him]

"I could are less?"
J.

Care*

 

[Johann]

Sure I do, my brother… Jesus.

Quote Scriptures my brother, Messiah did it, so the apostles, and so should we.
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Scripture even says that the Word was with God in the beginning. Jesus didn't just pop into existence with the virgin birth.

If the beginning referenced was In the first century beginning with the first begotten of the Father, then yes.

 

[Johann]

Care*

Oh, I see.
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Quote Scriptures my brother, Messiah did it, so the apostles, and so should we.
J.

You’ve read the scriptures for many years, and I know that you know you are a son of the Father, and so is Jesus. It shouldn’t be complicated.

 

[Johann]

If the beginning referenced was In the first century beginning with the first begotten of the Father, then yes.

In the beginning, before there was any beginning, eternity past...
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Born of God.

 

[Waiting on him]

In the beginning, before there was any beginning, eternity past...
J.

No, the New Testament doesn’t support this, this is Romanism.

 

[Johann]

It shouldn’t be complicated.

It is complicated for many here who cannot "see" that Y'hoshuwa haya Elohim..
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Gods creation began with Christ first century even our calendar declares it.

 

[Waiting on him]

It is complicated for many here who cannot "see" that Y'hoshuwa haya Elohim..
J.

Scripture cannot be broken Jesus=first born.

 

[Johann]

No, the New Testament doesn’t support this, this is Romanism.

Read the morphology..in the beginning..before there was any beginning...


In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν)
With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until Joh_1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare Joh_1:3; Joh_17:5; 1Jn_1:1; Eph_1:4; Pro_8:23; Psa_90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή, beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν, was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί, I am, Joh_8:58) instead of ἐγένετο, came into being, or began to be, which is used in Joh_1:3, Joh_1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή, in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (Joh_8:44; 1Jn_2:7, 1Jn_2:24; 1Jn_3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. “In Gen_1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time.
Vincent.
No room for Romanism.
J.

 

[Johann]

Scripture cannot be broken Jesus=first born.

How do you understand "firstborn?"
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

Read the morphology..in the beginning..before there was any beginning...


In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν)
With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until Joh_1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare Joh_1:3; Joh_17:5; 1Jn_1:1; Eph_1:4; Pro_8:23; Psa_90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή, beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν, was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί, I am, Joh_8:58) instead of ἐγένετο, came into being, or began to be, which is used in Joh_1:3, Joh_1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή, in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (Joh_8:44; 1Jn_2:7, 1Jn_2:24; 1Jn_3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. “In Gen_1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time.
Vincent.
No room for Romanism.
J.

You do realize a new age began? Jesus preexisted in the spirit and wisdom of God. When you read Genesis and see man created in their image what you have is the very picture of Christ. For he is the image of the invisible God. No man had ever witnessed this until the first century.

 

[Waiting on him]

How do you understand "firstborn?"
J.

As Scripture states. First born with the breath of God.