Jesus Christ Claims to be Yahweh - John 8:23-25

[follower]

we are also in agreement

At last, and maybe previously, the source of some at least of your errors is here revealed.

 

[Runningman]

At last, and maybe previously, the source of some at least of your errors is here revealed.

Such as?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sorry, I thought I had put in my account details that I was a Jehovah witness

Can you clear up a clear contradiction in your own "bible" translation, The New World Translation?

In John 1:1, this version reads, "and the Word was a god", which is meant to mean that Jesus Christ is not God, as the Father, Who He is with, is. This is not because of what the Greek grammar, or context, or John's Christology says; but the view of the JW's on the Person of Jesus Christ, that He is Jehovah's first creation.

In the NWT for Isaiah 9:6, the Prophecy of Jesus Christ's Birth, etc, He is very clearly called, "Mighty God", in capitals, not, "mighty god". https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/isaiah/9/

The exact same Hebrew, "’êl Gibbôr", is also used in chapter 10, for the Father, and also translated as "Mighty God" (verse 21), https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/isaiah/10/

How can Jesus Christ be "a god" in John 1:1, and according to JW's "theology", as created Person; and also be "Mighty God", exactly as the Father, or Jehovah is?

If, as the NWT itself says, that Jesus Christ is Mighty God, and the Father is also Mighty God, then we have the Absolute Deity and COEQUALITY of Jesus Christ with the Father! Not only this, but the FACT, that we have TWO distinct Persons, Jesus Christ AND the Father, as Mighty God, which destroys any notion that God is "Unitarian"!

The NWT itself has PROVEN the Bible FACT, that Jesus Christ CANNOT be "created", and in any way "inferior" to God the Father!

From the Testimony of Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1 can ONLY read, "and the Word was God".

I await your response.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

the Bible FACT, that Jesus Christ CANNOT be "created", and in any way "inferior" to God the Father!

I could not resist adding a different perspective to both the Trinitarian and the JW views. I consider that Jesus is created. He was MADE a little lower than the Angels, and as such he is the firstborn of the New Creation, and thus very much a created Being:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
He fulfills the role assigned to Adam who failed. Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. He is not Michael the ArchAngel or a similar Angel, neither is he God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

I could not resist adding a different perspective to both the Trinitarian and the JW views. I consider that Jesus is created. He was MADE a little lower than the Angels, and as such he is the firstborn of the New Creation, and thus very much a created Being:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
He fulfills the role assigned to Adam who failed. Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. He is not Michael the ArchAngel or a similar Angel, neither is he God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

how about dealing directly with what I have said in post #63?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

how about dealing directly with what I have said in post #63?

Can you clear up a clear contradiction in your own "bible" translation, The New World Translation?
In John 1:1, this version reads, "and the Word was a god"

If you insist, but I was only trying to highlight a bit of disagreement and move on. This was partly in response to some of your very fixed ideas on a number of items.There seems to be never ending discussion on some of these topics. That is why I added a smile:

I differ with the JWs on John 1:1 and their NWT rendition "a god". My guess is the JW position could be historical as to the NWT "a god", as I suggest that some one at one stage noticed the interlinear portion of the Diaglott, and despite the translation by the Daiglott they misunderstood this, and then some JW misused this rendition, and the JWs have ever since gone to extraordinary lengths to justify this "inspired" comment or "translation", in the same manner as they justify many of their wrong doctrines and also erroneous portions of the NWT, e.g. Genesis 3:1. Their stubbornness is based on the idea that their GB is Spirit guided, and anything that has appeared in major literature MUST be correct (until grudgingly they decide on some "new light" and let the old idea fade away in newer literature - sometimes to the astonishment of some of the older members). So on John 1:1, I do not agree with the JWs, or the Trinitarians.

How can Jesus Christ be ... "Mighty God", exactly as the Father, or Jehovah is?

There are many descriptions attributed to Yahweh, God the Father and these titles and attributes are also applicable to Jesus. Yahweh is a Shepherd, and a Saviour and many other titles and attributes. I understand that "Mighty God" is the Hebrew phrase "El Gibbor" and this title is attributable to both Yahweh and also will be applied to Jesus, the child that was to be born, in the future. I will not strictly define the meaning of "Gibbor", but "El" is a Divine title used in many contexts. Would you like to expound the word "Gibbor"?

the FACT, that we have TWO distinct Persons, Jesus Christ AND the Father, as Mighty God, which destroys any notion that God is "Unitarian"!

Your use of a simple, shallow, erroneous syllogism here is far from useful. You are also hiding behind the English meaning of the word "God", rather than looking at "El" in both contexts.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,


If you insist, but I was only trying to highlight a bit of disagreement and move on. This was partly in response to some of your very fixed ideas on a number of items.There seems to be never ending discussion on some of these topics. That is why I added a smile:

I differ with the JWs on John 1:1 and their NWT rendition "a god". My guess is the JW position could be historical as to the NWT "a god", as I suggest that some one at one stage noticed the interlinear portion of the Diaglott, and despite the translation by the Daiglott they misunderstood this, and then some JW misused this rendition, and the JWs have ever since gone to extraordinary lengths to justify this "inspired" comment or "translation", in the same manner as they justify many of their wrong doctrines and also erroneous portions of the NWT, e.g. Genesis 3:1. Their stubbornness is based on the idea that their GB is Spirit guided, and anything that has appeared in major literature MUST be correct (until grudgingly they decide on some "new light" and let the old idea fade away in newer literature - sometimes to the astonishment of some of the older members). So on John 1:1, I do not agree with the JWs, or the Trinitarians.

There are many descriptions attributed to Yahweh, God the Father and these titles and attributes are also applicable to Jesus. Yahweh is a Shepherd, and a Saviour and many other titles and attributes. I understand that "Mighty God" is the Hebrew phrase "El Gibbor" and this title is attributable to both Yahweh and also will be applied to Jesus, the child that was to be born, in the future. I will not strictly define the meaning of "Gibbor", but "El" is a Divine title used in many contexts. Would you like to expound the word "Gibbor"?

Your use of a simple, shallow, erroneous syllogism here is far from useful. You are also hiding behind the English meaning of the word "God", rather than looking at "El" in both contexts.

Kind regards
Trevor

What you write here is just waffle!

You are also reasoning because of your theology and not what the Bible actually teaches

No one can ever disprove the FACT that Jesus Christ is MIGHTY GOD which is the same as YHWH

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

No one can ever disprove the FACT that Jesus Christ is MIGHTY GOD which is the same as YHWH

The following is one paragraph from TWOT concerning El Gibbor:
It is not surprising that in such a society God was often depicted as a warrior. God is the true prototype of the mighty man, and if an earthly warrior’s deeds are recounted, how much more should God’s be. Thus the psalmists recount God’s mighty acts (106:8; 145:4, 11, 12; etc.) and in various places those attributes which a warrior-king might be expected to possess—wisdom, might, counsel and understanding—are attributed par excellence to God (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14). Isaiah (9:6; cf. 10:21) indicates that these will be the attributes of the Coming King, whose name is the Mighty God as well as the Prince of Peace, but he also makes it plain that justice and righteousness will accompany his might (cf. Ps 89:13–14 [H 14–15]).
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (p. 148)

Yes, you are using a faulty syllogism.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

The following is one paragraph from TWOT concerning El Gibbor:
It is not surprising that in such a society God was often depicted as a warrior. God is the true prototype of the mighty man, and if an earthly warrior’s deeds are recounted, how much more should God’s be. Thus the psalmists recount God’s mighty acts (106:8; 145:4, 11, 12; etc.) and in various places those attributes which a warrior-king might be expected to possess—wisdom, might, counsel and understanding—are attributed par excellence to God (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14). Isaiah (9:6; cf. 10:21) indicates that these will be the attributes of the Coming King, whose name is the Mighty God as well as the Prince of Peace, but he also makes it plain that justice and righteousness will accompany his might (cf. Ps 89:13–14 [H 14–15]).
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (p. 148)

Yes, you are using a faulty syllogism.

Kind regards
Trevor

As I have shown the Jehovahs Witnesses clearly call Jesus Christ Might God in their own translation. And also the same for the Father!

 

[BB1956]

In other words, you are not a jw.

In-so-much as you are in Christ Jesus, continue always in Him, seeking Him as the Father Grants Grace to Live in Jesus.

Yes I am a JW. JW's have always believed that there is only one true God and that God sent his only begotten Son to mankind to die for mankind, then God resurrected his only begotten Son three days after his death, and if anyone of mankind exercises faith in this he/she will get everlasting life. This that I have just stated I have always believed and what JW's have always believed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes I am a JW. JW's have always believed that there is only one true God and that God sent his only begotten Son to mankind to die for mankind, then God resurrected his only begotten Son three days after his death, and if anyone of mankind exercises faith in this he/she will get everlasting life. This that I have just stated I have always believed and what JW's have always believed.

Did you read #63

 

[skidootech]

#9 is very clear that you are wrong!

the 9th posy i am assuming is of the prophecy of isaiah saying prepare the way, so John the baptist did prepare the way for Yehovah, it is when he baptized Yeshua and Yehovah descended upon him as a dove, so no my understanding explains it quite well. but still in rev 3:12 Yeshua says his God, so Yeshua has a God that he worships and the other fact is HE has a new name, but his God does not. explain this

 

[follower]

Yes I am a JW. JW's have always believed

Even demons believe and they shudder knowing the terror they are facing, the judgment they are under and can never escape.
JW's believe and they should shudder knowing the terror they are facing, the judgment they are remaining under if they do not escape.
There was once a jw who got saved, and when his family and his jw church found out he was saved, he was kicked out, shunned.

 

[follower]

I consider that Jesus is created.

His body was created . He is and always has been UNcreated, eternal.

 

[Runningman]

In other words, you are not a jw.

In-so-much as you are in Christ Jesus, continue always in Him, seeking Him as the Father Grants Grace to Live in Jesus.

What is better? Please choose one.

OPTION A. A denomination embraces constant learning and changes based on new information.
OPTION B. A denomination that rigidly holds fast to ideas proven to be incorrect

 

[follower]

What is better? Please choose one.

Better in what way ?
As you journey through life, most of the time is in darkness.
Which deception in the darkness you live in
will result in
or will God take notice of
and cause you to turn to come to the light , to truth instead of and away from the darkness you were taught and lived in all your life ?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings follower,

His body was created . He is and always has been UNcreated, eternal.

I do not accept that Jesus had two natures. He was born a human and I do not accept that he was a merging of a human and a Deity. I do not accept the concept of immortal souls, or some immaterial spirit where our thoughts are preserved after death, or that these are the centre of our present thoughts. Our brain, part of our body, does the thinking. If we hit our head hard enough we will be knocked out. If the brain is starved of oxygen for more than 10 minutes, then there is no full recovery. I believe in the resurrection, not immortal souls that go to heaven or hell at death.

Now I consider Jesus was a human, a child that grew and developed.
Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
He did not have both the mind of a child, and somehow there was also a Deity within his body. He did not have two minds.

He grew in wisdom, and by the time he started his ministry he was "full of grace and truth". This was a development, not the implantation of God the Son into a human frame. The Word was made flesh.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
He was a complete human being, exceptional because of his character and development, and this is greatly attributed to the fact that the One God, Yahweh, God the Father was his father.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[follower]

I do not accept

God , nor understand His Power, nor accept His Word.

There's no where to discuss anything with you that would be helpful.

 

[JLB]

Shown here is a page from the Codex Sinaiticus, a parchment manuscript of the fourth century C.E. The inset in the image includes the part of 1Ti 3:16 that many translations have rendered “He was manifested in the flesh,” or they have used similar expressions. However, as can be seen in the image, someone made an addition above the original text and added two letters to change the wording from “He” to “God.” (This addition was made later, probably in the 12th century C.E.)

Here is what is written in the scriptures and the context of verse 16 -

These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, (G2316 Theos) which is the church of the living God, (G2316 Theos) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (G2316 Theos) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:14-16


Based on the Greek word Theos, being mentioned in the previous verse, and rendered as "God", it's only right that we continue to interpret THEOS as being God in verse 16, unless you believe the meaning of the word THEOS changed from verse 15.


Is that what you believe? Is that what you are attempting to teach this community that the word THEOS God in verse 15, has now changed to mean a man in verse 16?
Let's see how that looks:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God A man was manifested in the flesh,
1 Timothy 3:16

Sorry, bro, it just doesn't work.

 

[follower]

Let God Be God, and every man a liar.