I Was A Jehovah's Witness from age 28-44. I'm now 55

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vasian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome back Vasian 👍

May God’s blessings be with you and may the Holy Spirit teach you all that is to be taught.
 
Interestingly, the difference made of between these two terms can usually only be found among those theologians who wish to make this an issue.

The role he plays in the outworking of Jehovah’s purpose is quite simple.

(Romans 5:18-19) ...So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one many will be constituted righteous.

See the contrast being made here, between the disobedient act of one man (Adam), and how all of this was offset by the obedient act of another man (Jesus).

(Hebrews 5:8) ...Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered;

(1 Timothy 2:5) ...For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,

As for Jesus being eternal, this only came as a result of the display of his own willing faithfulness and sacrifice to his own God and Father. Because Jehovah was, indeed, pleased with the display of integrity of Jesus, the reward He grants His Son is simply:

(John 5:25-30) ...“Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. 28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment. 30*I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Well, it may, indeed, make sense,…but, it is quite contrary to what the Bible, otherwise, plainly declares.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books
Christ is both God and man. “Before Abraham was, I am” is as clear and succint a declaration of Christ’s divinity as you’re going to get. He was identifying Himself as God. Contrast this with the Jews, who weren’t even prepared to say God’s name. Yet Christ went around calling Him “Daddy” in Aramaic.

His seeming human limitations come about because for a season He became human, and had to speak in human terms to human beings in terms they would understand. But that’s something the JW’s don’t seem to realise.

If there were a trinitarian outfit of humans, whose job it was to bring salvation to dogs, one of them would become a dog. But that human would still be, at core, a person, not a dog. But to communicate to the dogs, he’d have to bark, growl, yelp and whine. And you can bet your bottom dollar that some dogs would interpret his barks, growls, yelps and whines to mean he wasn’t fully human.

“I and the Father are one”. That’s a statement of Godhood.

“I will send you the Holy Spirit”. That’s a statement of Godhood.

“No man goes to the Father but by me”. That’s a statement of Godhood.

He made it clear He was divine. He’s God the Son, full stop. Along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
 
John, I believe when we look at Scripture, we should simply look at what it is saying in the most direct way, and then go from there 🙂 for example, we can look at the part where Jesus claims to forgive sin. The Jews believed only God can forgive sin. What would you say about this?

God bless.
Dear Monica,

Very good question.

Just keep in mind that, although the evidences were there before them, especially in the ways in which Jesus was fulfilling the 300+ prophesies outlined by Jehovah throughout the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”), the vast majority of the Jews continued to resist those proofs.

Therefore, much of what Jesus encountered was resistance that was stemming from an hard-hearted attitude.

Whereas, when it came to Jesus forgiving sins, he said:

" ...the Son of man has authority on the earth to forgive sins... (Luke 5:24).

But, the Bible also makes plain that such authority did not derive from himself. To keep such a bold statement in its proper perspective, the following was also said:

(Matthew 28:18) - “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth...

(John 3:35) The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

(John 17:2) - . . .according as you have given him authority over all flesh,…

(1 Corinthians 15:27) - For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.

Therefore, any ability, right or authority that Jesus displayed, in this regard, came directly from the sole authority of his own God and Father.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books.
 
“Before Abraham was, I am”

Maybe we could all discuss this one 🙂

to me, this is VERY clear that Christ is calling Himself God. Not only by saying that He has always existed, before Abraham, but also calling Himself the “I AM” - God’s Name.
 
Dear Monica,

Very good question.

Just keep in mind that, although the evidences were there before them, especially in the ways in which Jesus was fulfilling the 300+ prophesies outlined by Jehovah throughout the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”), the vast majority of the Jews continued to resist those proofs.

Therefore, much of what Jesus encountered was resistance that was stemming from an hard-hearted attitude.

Whereas, when it came to Jesus forgiving sins, he said:

" ...the Son of man has authority on the earth to forgive sins... (Luke 5:24).

But, the Bible also makes plain that such authority did not derive from himself. To keep such a bold statement in its proper perspective, the following was also said:

(Matthew 28:18) - “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth...

(John 3:35) The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

(John 17:2) - . . .according as you have given him authority over all flesh,…

(1 Corinthians 15:27) - For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.

Therefore, any ability, right or authority that Jesus displayed, in this regard, came directly from the sole authority of his own God and Father.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books.
this however does not mean that He is not God, as I explained, - in the Trinity, the Father is the origin… so it makes sense that He would give authority to the other Persons of the Trinity. The Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds…
 
Christ is both God and man. “Before Abraham was, I am” is as clear and succint a declaration of Christ’s divinity as you’re going to get. He was identifying Himself as God. Contrast this with the Jews, who weren’t even prepared to say God’s name. Yet Christ went around calling Him “Daddy” in Aramaic.
Although it would appear by translation that the “I am” wording of Jesus’ within John 8:58 is parallel to Jehovah’s statement at Exodus 3:14, examination of most any modern version of these verses (even that of the Jews) makes it quite plain that it is not. Even the Greek Septuagint didn’t use the same wording, that is, within the final clause of Ex 3:14.
His seeming human limitations come about because for a season He became human, and had to speak in human terms to human beings in terms they would understand. But that’s something the JW’s don’t seem to realise.
What I do realize is that, although this is the reasoning on many, such philosophical notions about Jesus or God cannot be substantiated by the simple teachings of Holy Scripture.
If there were a trinitarian outfit of humans, whose job it was to bring salvation to dogs, one of them would become a dog. But that human would still be, at core, a person, not a dog. But to communicate to the dogs, he’d have to bark, growl, yelp and whine. And you can bet your bottom dollar that some dogs would interpret his barks, growls, yelps and whines to mean he wasn’t fully human.
Again, although quite an entertaining notion, the Scriptures nowhere make such an assertion about Jesus or God.
“I and the Father are one”. That’s a statement of Godhood.
Might I suggest you check within your own Bible and see where, within its own cross-referencing system, this commonly leads one to a number of other scriptures, those of which, when utilizing the term “one,” something quite different is being expressed. (See within John 17)
“I will send you the Holy Spirit”. That’s a statement of Godhood.
Jesus display of ‘authority,’ although quite significant, was only that which he was granted to exercise by way of the willingness on the part of his own God and Father - thus, certainly not something of which was derived on his own.
“No man goes to the Father but by me”. That’s a statement of Godhood.
This statement of Jesus’ is true by virture of the fact that, it is only by means of Jesus display of obedience to his own God and Father that he can serve, according to the Father’s will and purpose, as the ‘way’ by which humans can, once again, return back into favor with God.
He made it clear He was divine. He’s God the Son, full stop. Along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
To the contrary, he made it clear that he was sent, approved and honored by his God and Father, all because he fulfilled the commission given him, all in service to Jehovah.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books
 
“Before Abraham was, I am”

Maybe we could all discuss this one 🙂

to me, this is VERY clear that Christ is calling Himself God. Not only by saying that He has always existed, before Abraham, but also calling Himself the “I AM” - God’s Name.
Dear Monica,

Yes, that is a very good one to begin with.

First of all, have you taken the time to examine how these two verses are worded within other Bibles, that is, both at John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14; especially taking note of any footnotes which might be offered therein? If you haven’t already done this, might I suggest that you do so and see what you can find.

Although it must be acknowledged that, within many a Bible translation, a parallel does certainly appear to be there, that is, in the commonly adopted wording of “I am” at both places, on the other hand, I have found that, when you look around at other Bibles, you will start to witness some significant differences - especially when you compare what has been opted as the wording within the translated main text itself, that is, as compared with what many a footnote might also otherwise reveal.

Quite interestingly, when examining the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14, that is, the translation done by Jews from the Hebrew to Greek (started some 200+ years before Jesus’ time, of which, both Jesus and the apostles had, themselves, quoted from quite freely), I think you will find something very enlightening.

Whereas, at John 8:58, Jesus ends with the Greek, “ego eimi” (commonly rendered into English as “I am”), within the ending phrase of Exodus 3:14, that is, within the wording of the Greek Septuagint Version, we read something quite different. Granted, earlier within that same verse, the Greek does have, “ego eimi ho on,” but, when it is that Jehovah is recorded to have concluded his statement, it is quite significant to note that he does not say to Moses, ‘“ego eimi” has sent be to you,’ but has said instead, ‘“ho on” has sent me to you.’

See: Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Interlinear’s

In other words, although many an English Bible translation (as done by Trinitarian scholars), have, by way of their choice of wording, caused some to believe that there is a direct link between these two verses - that is, as a purposeful parallel being made between Jehovah’s words (at Exodus 3:14) and Jesus’ words (at John 8:58) - apart from that purpose being one as manufactured by way of the agenda of Trinitarian translators, when it comes to the actual wording of Scriptures themselves, there is, in fact, none to be seen.

On the chance that you might be interested, the following link provides some greater, more detailed discussion of this topic:

John 8:58’s "EGO EIMI"

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

[P.S. - Monica4316: Just as a side note to you and others looking on. Because it is quite typical to encounter many who would like to enter into discussion on such topics, it must be realized that, for as much as I might desire to address them all, I simply can not. Therefore, because I’ve started this dialogue with “Monica4316,” in my attempts at being as thorough in my replies to her as I can, I must limit them to her only. Thanking you in advance for your kind understanding, I bid you Kalos Agape.]
 
this however does not mean that He is not God, as I explained, - in the Trinity, the Father is the origin… so it makes sense that He would give authority to the other Persons of the Trinity. The Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds…
Dear Monica,

Therefore, with respect to your inquiry, “…we can look at the part where Jesus claims to forgive sin,” it stands to reason that, since this was due to fact that “the Father is the origin” of such ability, such authority, this then shows that Jesus needn’t be God in order to do so - in fact, by having been delegated with such from “the Father,” since “the Father” has never been delegated with any of such from anyone else, the opposite would actually be proved true.

Bear in mind, "...there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” - (Matthew 3:17)

(Matthew 17:5) - While he was yet speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and, look! a voice out of the cloud, saying: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him.”

(2 Peter 1:17) - For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when words such as these were borne to him by the magnificent glory: “This is my son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.”

(Mark 9:7) - And a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud: “This is my Son, the beloved; listen to him.”

(Luke 9:35) - And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: “This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.”

It would have made no sense for God to speak of having “approved” His Son, to be speaking of him as his “beloved,” as the “chosen” one, that is, if Jesus were, indeed, God or, for that matter, any part of a Trinity.

Quite clearly, something else was going on:

(Matthew 26:39) - "And going a little way forward, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

Certainly, if as God, Jesus could have never been speaking such things.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books
 
An interesting exchange of ideas, indeed:thumbsup:

Don’t forget to write down your time:D
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monica4316
Also, there’s the concept of Jesus being begotten, not created.
(Answered by JohnOneOne )
Interestingly, the difference made of between these two terms can usually only be found among those theologians who wish to make this an issue.
JohnOneOne:

In response to your statement above, might I ask, since when is it an issue among theologians? Were you begotten or created?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
When examining Jesus’ words at John 10:34, 35, as he was quoting from Psalm 82:6, we can see that others are called “gods,” commonly identified as the magistrate judges of Israel. (And this is not the only example within the Bible where others, those not in opposition to Almighty God, are referred to as “gods.”)

“The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elōhîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…”

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?), Distinguished Professor of the New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado. “The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary.” (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Certainly, because of the faithfulness of Jesus as God’s “servant” (Isaiah 43:1; 52:13; Matthew 12:18) and due to the obedience (Romans 5:19; Hebrews 5:8) of Jesus as God’s ‘Anointed One’ (Acts 10:38), that which he willingly displayed (John 4:34) toward his heavenly Father (John 5:36), his God (John 20:17), even to his own death (Matthew 26:39), as God’s “apostle” (Hebrews 3:1), our “Savior” (Luke 2:11; John 3:17; Acts 5:31; 1 John 4:14), serving as our appointed “Lord” (Acts 2:34)**, designated “Judge” (John 5:22; Acts 17:31), heavenly Ruler (Revelation 3:21) and “King” (1 Corinthians 15:25), he has surely more right to the title “god” (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:18), than any other earthly (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), or heavenly “representative” **(Psalm 8:5) **of God. ** (John 7:29. Compare also: 1 Corinthians 15:27).

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books
Might I also ask what is the WBTS explanation of John 20:28, where the Apostle Thomas says “My Lord and My God” upon seeing the resurrected Jesus?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
P.S. I forgot to mention, calling Jesus “a god” and saying that He is divine is in violation of the first commandment.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Although it would appear by translation that the “I am” wording of Jesus’ within John 8:58 is parallel to Jehovah’s statement at Exodus 3:14, examination of most any modern version of these verses (even that of the Jews) makes it quite plain that it is not. Even the Greek Septuagint didn’t use the same wording, that is, within the final clause of Ex 3:14.

What I do realize is that, although this is the reasoning on many, such philosophical notions about Jesus or God cannot be substantiated by the simple teachings of Holy Scripture.

Again, although quite an entertaining notion, the Scriptures nowhere make such an assertion about Jesus or God.

Might I suggest you check within your own Bible and see where, within its own cross-referencing system, this commonly leads one to a number of other scriptures, those of which, when utilizing the term “one,” something quite different is being expressed. (See within John 17)

Jesus display of ‘authority,’ although quite significant, was only that which he was granted to exercise by way of the willingness on the part of his own God and Father - thus, certainly not something of which was derived on his own.

This statement of Jesus’ is true by virture of the fact that, it is only by means of Jesus display of obedience to his own God and Father that he can serve, according to the Father’s will and purpose, as the ‘way’ by which humans can, once again, return back into favor with God.

To the contrary, he made it clear that he was sent, approved and honored by his God and Father, all because he fulfilled the commission given him, all in service to Jehovah.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books
I don’t suppose you’d like to take a punt who the three men were who appeared to Abraham at the tree of Mamre?

One of them would have been Christ. And Abraham was the first Patriarch.

As Christ was to say later, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day”. How would Christ know that except by prior acquaintance with Abraham?
 
JohnOneOne:

In response to your statement above, might I ask, since when is it an issue among theologians? Were you begotten or created?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Dear Javl,

As I said to Monica4316:

“Just as a side note to you and others looking on. Because it is quite typical to encounter many who would like to enter into discussion on such topics, it must be realized that, for as much as I might desire to address them all, I simply can not. Therefore, because I’ve started this dialogue with “Monica4316,” in my attempts at being as thorough in my replies to her as I can, I must limit them to her only.”

Thanking you in advance for your kind understanding, I bid you Kalos Agape,
JohnOneOne.
 
I don’t suppose you’d like to take a punt who the three men were who appeared to Abraham at the tree of Mamre?

One of them would have been Christ. And Abraham was the first Patriarch.

As Christ was to say later, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day”. How would Christ know that except by prior acquaintance with Abraham?
Dear Bob Crowley,

As I said to Monica4316:

“Just as a side note to you and others looking on. Because it is quite typical to encounter many who would like to enter into discussion on such topics, it must be realized that, for as much as I might desire to address them all, I simply can not. Therefore, because I’ve started this dialogue with “Monica4316,” in my attempts at being as thorough in my replies to her as I can, I must limit them to her only.”

Thanking you in advance for your kind understanding, I bid you Kalos Agape,
JohnOneOne.
 
P.S. I forgot to mention, calling Jesus “a god” and saying that He is divine is in violation of the first commandment.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Dear Javl,

As I said to Monica4316:

“Just as a side note to you and others looking on. Because it is quite typical to encounter many who would like to enter into discussion on such topics, it must be realized that, for as much as I might desire to address them all, I simply can not. Therefore, because I’ve started this dialogue with “Monica4316,” in my attempts at being as thorough in my replies to her as I can, I must limit them to her only.”

Thanking you in advance for your kind understanding,
I bid you Kalos Agape,
JohnOneOne.
 
Might I also ask what is the WBTS explanation of John 20:28, where the Apostle Thomas says “My Lord and My God” upon seeing the resurrected Jesus?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Dear Javl,

As I said to Monica4316:

“Just as a side note to you and others looking on. Because it is quite typical to encounter many who would like to enter into discussion on such topics, it must be realized that, for as much as I might desire to address them all, I simply can not. Therefore, because I’ve started this dialogue with “Monica4316,” in my attempts at being as thorough in my replies to her as I can, I must limit them to her only.”

Thanking you in advance for your kind understanding,
I bid you Kalos Agape,
JohnOneOne.
 
Bob Crowley:

Hi Bob. I guess we’ll have to get in line and wait our turn while he consults with the WBTS for the answers to our questions. I don’t know…you and I can hold multiple dialogues but I guess he can’t. Oh, well…let’s have some patience. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top