D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Until you reply to me on your blog I get the last word. BTW better hurry up… it kind of makes you look foolish on your own blog to make those claims when they are so easy to disprove
Bible writers teach monotheism and identify the Father as the one God
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
I will wait until you have dealt with all the scriptures I have quoted in my Blog before replying to it. So far you have only dealt with two of them. You will have to do a lot better than that before claiming to get the “last word”!
You will be lucky! I am more confident about my claims than that. Your arguments and counterclaims on my Blog so far have been too weak to require a reply. I am waiting to see if you can do better than that!BTW better hurry up… it kind of makes you look foolish on your own blog to make those claims when they are so easy to disprove
T
Tomster
Guest
“In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and The Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1-2)
Dan,
St. John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is not content with stating that God the Son is begotten by the Father in the everpresent, ceaseless, infinite “now” of eternity; he has to repeat and emphasize it. In the first place he would have us acknowledge that the Second Person lives in intimate union with the First. In his first epistle he is even more explicit: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, in regard of the Word of life - and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and declare to you that everlasting Life which was with the Father and was manifested to us - that which we have seen and heard we declare to you also” (1 John 1:1-3). What sublime words those are! Perhaps it is significant that the Apostle omits the words of greeting customary at the beginning of letters; either it was unnecessary or he was so preoccupied with his message. Life, divine, eternal, infinite, the source of all life, God the Son has shown Himself; John has seen and heard and handled Him. He must pass on the vital message.
The beloved disciple wrote at the end of the first century. Even more remarkable is it that some forty years before another was writing ecstatically about the heavenly pre-existence of him whom the Jews had nailed as a criminal to a cross and whom he, Saul of Tarsus, had though it a privilege to revile and refute. For him now, after his sensational conversion on the road to Damascus, Christ is higher and than the highest heaven, vaster than the vastest space, more powerful than death, sole conqueror of sin, the fullness of the life of God, existing before all ages. “He is the image of the unseen God, firstborn of all creation. For in Him were created all things in heaven and on earth, things seen and unseen, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers - all creation is through Him and unto Him. An Himself is prior to all, and in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1: 15-17). In this passage is inexhaustible wealth of doctrine. Not only is Christ the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, above all creatures, existing from all eternity, He is the efficient and final cause, the beginning and the end, the very center of everything created, corporeal and incorporeal. Through His agency all came to be; in Him they have their permanence, for Him they are. In Him “lie hidden all the treasures of wisdomand knowledge”; in Him dwells “all the fullness of the Gohead corporally . . . who is the head of every principality and power” (Col. 2:3, 10).
What a picture of Christ this was to present to the world that had crucified Him only thirty-three years before! We find it again in that famous passage from the Apostle’s letter to the Phillipians; Christ possessed equality of being with God so that every knee is to bend before Him in heaven, on earth and in hell (Phil. 2: 9-11). There was no gradual growth in St. Paul’s conception of Christ; it was complete from the moment of his conversion. Christ was for him the incomparable, the one and only, above whom or beside whom was nothing. Yet, our Lord was only slightly older than Paul; they could be thought of as comtemporaries; they might have passed one another in Jerusalem’s streets or in the Temple courts. The Apostle was converted at most only six or seven years after the crucifixion - some say there was no interval of note - his preaching began only ten years after it, his writings only another ten years later - yet here he is proclaiming that the man who had cried out on the cross. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me” (Matthew 27:46), existed eternally before creation began and is identical with the one, true God of Israel, “who is over all, God blessed forever” (Romans 9:5).
cont.
T
Tomster
Guest
Dan,
Let us glance in further detail at this picture of the divine Christ which the New Testament presents to us.
He is: "our great God and Saviour: (Titus 2:13)
whose “throne is forever” (Hebrews 1:8)
“the true God and everlasting life” (1 John 5:19)
His origin is divine.
He “hath come down from heaven, from above, is above all, went forth from God” (John 3:13-31; 6:38-51; 8:23-42; 16:5ff).
He is equal to the eternal Father, for “all things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knoweth the Son except the Father nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and He to whom the Son may choose to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27).
The Jews wished to kill Him for “calling God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5;17ff.). When Phillip begged to be shown the Father, Christ replied: “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” . . . “The Father abiding in me doth His works. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me” (John 14: 10ff.). “I and the Father are one . . . The Father is in me and I in the Father” (John 10: 30, 38).
He is eternal: “Before Abraham came to be, I am” (John 8:58). Before the world came into existence he possessed the Father’s glory (John 17:5). He is unchangeable, "the same yesterday and today and forever: (Hebrews 13:8). He is omnipotent, for all things have been delivered to Him by His Father (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22) and all power is given to Him in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). He gives life to whom He wills (John 5:21).
He has divine pre-eminence over the angels who came and ministered to Him (Matthew 4:11), whom He sends forth as His (Matthew 13:41), who will escort Him to judge mankind (Matthew 16:27) and on whom He can call at any time (Matthew 26:53), they being “made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). “Believe in God and believe in me”, He says (John 14:1), asserting that because He goes to the Father He will do whatever we ask in His Name (John 14:13ff.). He loves us with divine love; we must love Him by doing His, God’s, will (John 15:9). Divine names are given Him, Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1:8 etc.), Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23), God (John 20:28), Lord (Acts 2:36; 7:59ff.; 10:26; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 16:22ff.; Phil 2:11; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3; Jude 4:17) and, as we have seen, Word (John 1; 1 John 1:1; 5:7;Revelation 19:13).
A brief summary like this not only reminds us of the supreme dignity of our Blessed Lord, but it reveals the importance of a right outlook towards Him. The more we ponder the Godhead of Christ, the more we will realize how His coming among us is such a telling proof of God’s love.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Dan:
I concur with many of your sentiments even if I don’t agree with the way you have applied some of the Scriptures. The Son is the way and the truth and the life, and no one gets to the Father except through him (Jn 14:6). He is the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14). He is our ransom (John 3:16) and was given to us by the Father as our Saviour (1 John 4:14; Ac 4:12). He is now the reigning king sitting on the right hand of the Majesty (Heb 1:3).
However, when we fully dignify the Son we should also hold his words in the highest regards, especially when we don’t fully agree with them. For example:
DRA John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
We must also give the Father his rightful due for his unique qualities and titles as well. If we appropriate the glory of the Father and give it to the Son, and we are wrong, would we not be insulting (Is 48:11) to the God and Father of Jesus Christ? (Ro 15:6)
I concur with many of your sentiments even if I don’t agree with the way you have applied some of the Scriptures. The Son is the way and the truth and the life, and no one gets to the Father except through him (Jn 14:6). He is the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14). He is our ransom (John 3:16) and was given to us by the Father as our Saviour (1 John 4:14; Ac 4:12). He is now the reigning king sitting on the right hand of the Majesty (Heb 1:3).
However, when we fully dignify the Son we should also hold his words in the highest regards, especially when we don’t fully agree with them. For example:
DRA John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
We must also give the Father his rightful due for his unique qualities and titles as well. If we appropriate the glory of the Father and give it to the Son, and we are wrong, would we not be insulting (Is 48:11) to the God and Father of Jesus Christ? (Ro 15:6)
T
Tomster
Guest
Dan,
Maybe this will help you out.
“And the Word was flesh and dwelt among us.” - John 1:14
At once we feel confronted with the impossible when we are required to comment on these, probably the most significant words of all of Holy Scripture. Almost as if what had gone on before was a paranthesis, the Apostle takes us back a decade of verses: “In him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men; and the Word was made flesh.” Yes, the article is used to indicate that it is the same Word - the Word that was in the beginning with God, the Word that was God, the Word by whom all things were made, the Word in whom was life, the Word whose life was the light of men.
This same infinite Word was made flesh. The divine nature could not change. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed a full, entire human nature, a created body and soul. That human nature had no distinct human personality of its own. So the Word incarnate had two distinct natures, divine and human, but only one person, the Person of God the Son. Into the unity and dominion of the Divine Person the human nature was assumed. Henceforth the Divine Person, God the Son, would operate in the human nature and through it.
The Council of Chalcedon, confirming the famous dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo the Great in 451 A.D., defined: “We teach that one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only-Begotten is to be recognized in two natures unmixed, untransformed, unseparated, undivided whereby the difference of the natures in consequence of the unification was never abrogated, but the peculiarity of each of the two natures remains preserved.” Each of those two natures in Christ possess its own natural will and its own natural manner of operation. The union of the two natures in the one Personality took place at the moment of conception; it has never been interupted; it will never cease.
St. John chose to use the Greek word which means “flesh”. He could have written simply “man” but he wanted to stress particularly the infinite contrast betwen the Word, whom had just described, and the greatest weakness, for the flesh is the weaker part of human nature.
With the consenting words of the Blessed Virgin Mary there took place incomparably the greatest event in the history of creation. Greatest seems such an inadequate word. Call the Incarnation amazing, astounding, startling, and you are far from the mark; describe it as inenarrable, inexpressible, ineffable, unspeakable, unutterable and you are still falling short; say it is sublime, splendid, superb, glorious and you touch but one of its facets; tell of its importance, significance, consequences and momentousness and yet all you say must be inadequate. It is absolutely unique, utterly and completely indescribable in its infinite fullness. It dwarfs into nothingness all the otherwise most momentious happenings to matter, man or spirit. It infinitely transcends all comparison, outstrips all analogy and excells all parallels. To compare it with anything is to belittle it.
Is it not strange that familiarity has so dimmed man’s perception that he no longer estimates the importance of other human happenings by their relationship to this one pivotal thing, the union of God and man in Mary’s womb? Indeed most of the men who call themselves Christian hardly ever pause to think of the meaning of that happening in history which made Christianity possible.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Tomster
Dan,
Maybe this will help you out.
“And the Word was flesh and dwelt among us.” - John 1:14
At once we feel confronted with the impossible when we are required to comment on these, probably the most significant words of all of Holy Scripture. Almost as if what had gone on before was a parenthesis, the Apostle takes us back a decade of verses: “In him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men; and the Word was made flesh.” Yes, the article is used to indicate that it is the same Word - the Word that was in the beginning with God, the Word that was God, the Word by whom all things were made, the Word in whom was life, the Word whose life was the light of men.
This same infinite Word was made flesh.
Dan:
What bible writer calls Word infinite?
Tomster
The divine nature could not change. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed a full, entire human nature, a created body and soul. That human nature had no distinct human personality of its own. So the Word incarnate had two distinct natures, divine and human, but only one person, the Person of God the Son. Into the unity and dominion of the Divine Person the human nature was assumed. Henceforth the Divine Person, God the Son, would operate in the human nature and through it.
Dan:
I have never seen convincing evidence that the Son retained his divine nature when he became flesh. If you feel proving this is important to your POV then could you provide a bible writer who teaches this, in context?
Tomster
The Council of Chalcedon, confirming the famous dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo the Great in 451 A.D., defined: “We teach that one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only-Begotten is to be recognized in two natures unmixed, untransformed, unseparated, undivided whereby the difference of the natures in consequence of the unification was never abrogated, but the peculiarity of each of the two natures remains preserved.” Each of those two natures in Christ possess its own natural will and its own natural manner of operation. The union of the two natures in the one Personality took place at the moment of conception; it has never been interupted; it will never cease. St. John chose to use the Greek word which means “flesh”. He could have written simply “man” but he wanted to stress particularly the infinite contrast between the Word, whom had just described, and the greatest weakness, for the flesh is the weaker part of human nature.
Dan:
That is articulated very well in the Chalcedon Creed. Did they base this on Scripture and if so which ones?
Dan,
Maybe this will help you out.
“And the Word was flesh and dwelt among us.” - John 1:14
At once we feel confronted with the impossible when we are required to comment on these, probably the most significant words of all of Holy Scripture. Almost as if what had gone on before was a parenthesis, the Apostle takes us back a decade of verses: “In him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men; and the Word was made flesh.” Yes, the article is used to indicate that it is the same Word - the Word that was in the beginning with God, the Word that was God, the Word by whom all things were made, the Word in whom was life, the Word whose life was the light of men.
This same infinite Word was made flesh.
Dan:
What bible writer calls Word infinite?
Tomster
The divine nature could not change. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed a full, entire human nature, a created body and soul. That human nature had no distinct human personality of its own. So the Word incarnate had two distinct natures, divine and human, but only one person, the Person of God the Son. Into the unity and dominion of the Divine Person the human nature was assumed. Henceforth the Divine Person, God the Son, would operate in the human nature and through it.
Dan:
I have never seen convincing evidence that the Son retained his divine nature when he became flesh. If you feel proving this is important to your POV then could you provide a bible writer who teaches this, in context?
Tomster
The Council of Chalcedon, confirming the famous dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo the Great in 451 A.D., defined: “We teach that one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only-Begotten is to be recognized in two natures unmixed, untransformed, unseparated, undivided whereby the difference of the natures in consequence of the unification was never abrogated, but the peculiarity of each of the two natures remains preserved.” Each of those two natures in Christ possess its own natural will and its own natural manner of operation. The union of the two natures in the one Personality took place at the moment of conception; it has never been interupted; it will never cease. St. John chose to use the Greek word which means “flesh”. He could have written simply “man” but he wanted to stress particularly the infinite contrast between the Word, whom had just described, and the greatest weakness, for the flesh is the weaker part of human nature.
Dan:
That is articulated very well in the Chalcedon Creed. Did they base this on Scripture and if so which ones?
T
Tomster
Guest
Dan,
“We must also give the Father his rightful due for his unique qualities and titles as well. If we appropriate the glory of the Father and give it to the Son, and we are wrong, would we not be insulting (Is 48:11) to the God and Father of Jesus Christ?” - Dan
Dan,
Your fears are unfounded.
Refer to John 17: 1-26
T
Tomster
Guest
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Dan:
I have studied John 17 in detail numerous times. That text does not say that the Father gives his own personal glory to the Son, and Jehovah says he does not do this:
NJB Isaiah 48:11 For my sake and my sake only shall I act, for why should my name be profaned? I will not yield my glory to another.
If you feel differently, please make that argument.
T
Tomster
Guest
Easy!
To your first question refer to John 1:1-2.
As to your second question refer to the miracles Jesus performed while on earth especially His Resurrection from the dead. He rose as He said he would.
As to the third the dogmatic definition is an example of Sacred Tradition. You do admit that there is such a thing as tradition don’t you? Why, there are numerous examples of tradition in your own system of beliefs. The only trouble with JW tradition is that it is not infallible. You must admit that it has varied greatly since the days of Pastor Russell with no end in sight.
T
Tomster
Guest
Before we continue, please explain the name Jehovah. It is has been my understanding that the Hebrew name for God, as given in the Book of Exodus, is Yahweh. Ancient Hebrew did not have written vowels; therefore the name looked like this:YHWH. The four letters of the sacred Name are known as the tetragrammaton. In German, Y can be replaced by J and W by V, so that it would come out thus: JHVH. When certain vowels are inserted, “Jehovah” emerges. However, the substitutions are shaky, and the best proof that the whole process is faulty is that Jews today know the Lord’s name Name as Yahweh, not Jehovah.
Are we talking about the same God? How are we to understand the “god” in your relatively new translation of the Bible as stated in John 1?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Dan:
What bible writer calls Word infinite?
Tomster:
To your first question refer to John 1:1-2.
Dan_Replies:
NJB/McKenzie John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was a divine being. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
There is nothing there about the Word being infinite. McKenzie does not say the Word was the divine being.
**
Dan:**
I have never seen convincing evidence that the Son retained his divine nature when he became flesh. If you feel proving this is important to your POV then could you provide a bible writer who teaches this, in context?
Tomster:
As to your second question refer to the miracles Jesus performed while on earth especially His Resurrection from the dead. He rose as He said he would.
Dan_Replies:
Jesus said his Father was the one who did these things: DRA John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But** the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works**.
When Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead he confirmed this:
DRA John 11:40 Jesus saith to her: Did not I say to thee that if thou believe, thou shalt see the glory of God? 41 They took therefore the stone away. And J**esus lifting up his eyes, said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. **42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
**
Dan:**
That is articulated very well in the Chalcedon Creed. Did they base this on Scripture and if so which ones?
Tomster:
As to the third the dogmatic definition is an example of Sacred Tradition. You do admit that there is such a thing as tradition don’t you? Why, there are numerous examples of tradition in your own system of beliefs. The only trouble with JW tradition is that it is not infallible. You must admit that it has varied greatly since the days of Pastor Russell with no end in sight.
Dan_Replies:
Every single doctrine we teach was taught by bible writers in context, in at least its basic form. You may not agree with our interpretation, but we do not rely on any kind of tradition to support any doctrinal issue such as what you have just demonstrated.
What bible writer calls Word infinite?
Tomster:
To your first question refer to John 1:1-2.
Dan_Replies:
NJB/McKenzie John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was a divine being. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
There is nothing there about the Word being infinite. McKenzie does not say the Word was the divine being.
**
Dan:**
I have never seen convincing evidence that the Son retained his divine nature when he became flesh. If you feel proving this is important to your POV then could you provide a bible writer who teaches this, in context?
Tomster:
As to your second question refer to the miracles Jesus performed while on earth especially His Resurrection from the dead. He rose as He said he would.
Dan_Replies:
Jesus said his Father was the one who did these things: DRA John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But** the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works**.
When Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead he confirmed this:
DRA John 11:40 Jesus saith to her: Did not I say to thee that if thou believe, thou shalt see the glory of God? 41 They took therefore the stone away. And J**esus lifting up his eyes, said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. **42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
**
Dan:**
That is articulated very well in the Chalcedon Creed. Did they base this on Scripture and if so which ones?
Tomster:
As to the third the dogmatic definition is an example of Sacred Tradition. You do admit that there is such a thing as tradition don’t you? Why, there are numerous examples of tradition in your own system of beliefs. The only trouble with JW tradition is that it is not infallible. You must admit that it has varied greatly since the days of Pastor Russell with no end in sight.
Dan_Replies:
Every single doctrine we teach was taught by bible writers in context, in at least its basic form. You may not agree with our interpretation, but we do not rely on any kind of tradition to support any doctrinal issue such as what you have just demonstrated.
T
Tomster
Guest
Actually, the first verse of the chapter sets the tone for the rest of the chapter. I suggest you re-read it.
T
Tomster
Guest
You are correct. I do not agree with your interpetations. But tell us, Dan, don’t your own interpretations of Sacred Scripture, fallible by the way, make up the body of your own oral traditions which you teach to each other. What about the writings and teachings of Pastor Russell, Judge J.F. Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr? Have the JW’S dismissed them. Are their teachings still relavant or have they been done away with for new and different interpretations?
BTW- you still have not addressed the fact that JW teachings have changed over the years. Why haven’t you addressed this and what are the reasons for all of the changes?
T
Tomster
Guest
T
Tomster
Guest
“Every single doctrine we teach was taught by Bible writers in context, in at least its basic form.” - Dan
REALLY?
" ’ Let all the angels of God worship him’ [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God]. " WATCHTOWER 11/1879, p. 48
“to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong.” WATCHTOWER 3/1880. p.83
“And although we are nowhere instructed to make petitions to him, it evidently could not be improper to do so; for such a course is nowhere prohibited, and the disciples worshipped him.” WATCHTOWER 5/15/1892, p. 1410
“Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshipped, and properly so. While he was not the God, Jehovah, he was a god.” WATCHTOWER 7/15/1898 p. 2337
“All creatures in heaven and earth shall worship Jesus as he worships the Father.” WATCHTOWER 8/15/1941 p. 252
title of subsection: “Christ to Be Worshipped” MAKE SURE '53. P.85
Now for the change in beliefs.
“No distinct worship is to be rendered to Jesus Christ, now glorified in heaven.” - WATCHTOWER 1/1/1954, p.31
“Do not erroneously conclude that Christians are to worship Christ. That is not what the Bible taught.” WATCHTOWER 7/15/1959, p.421
“. . . it is unscriptural for worshippers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ.” WATCHTOWER 11/1/1964 p.671
So what’s on the JW menu today, Dan, to worship or not to worship? Whatever answer you have for us, please cite the biblical chapter and verse and the JW commentator giving us his/her oral tradition on the matter and settle this question once and for all.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Please allow Scripture to answer your question. Both the NAB and DR are free of error, correct? Notice that the prophecy speaks of Jesus as being made less than “a god” and that the DR says thee are angels.
NAB Psalm 8:6 Yet you have made them little less than** a god**, crowned them with glory and honor.
DRA Psalm 8:6 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour:
The NJB says there is a divine assembly which includes gods:
NJB Psalm 82:1 Psalm Of Asaph God takes his stand in the divine assembly, surrounded by the gods he gives judgement.
However this is not polytheism. Men and angels can be called gods because they either have a divine origin or because they are divine representatives or both.
NJB Deuteronomy 10:17 for Yahweh your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, triumphant and terrible, free of favouritism, never to be bribed.
How does one make sure they are not Polytheists? By making sure that they only and acknowledge and worship the one who is called not only elohim or QEOS, but the one who is identified as the one-God or only-God, the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
See my post on Monotheism for Scriptural examples.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Dan,
Is the NT Canon a “doctrinal issue”?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
It is a discussion of the Sacred Scriptures, their authenticity and origin. I think it relates well to this forum’s charter, what do you think? I did not introduce the subject, BTW.
- Status