Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics.

  • Thread starter Thread starter LennyUSA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jihargus,

You make some good points but they get lost in the volumes of writting. I don’t mean to be critical, but I think a lot of what you write is wasted for this reason. My eyes begin to gloss over and my brain starts hurting. There is also a forum rule, I believe, against writing posts that continue on and on into several posts.

I’d like what you write to be read but I think most is being ignored because its just a little too much. I can’t imagine trying to answer one of your posts. It would take volumes.

Anyway, just some friendly advice. 🙂

God bless.
 
It appears that PRMerger was correct and Nick headed for the door in this discussion. I really wished he had stayed so he could’ve learned something here, if he hasn’t already. Generally speaking, JW’s tend to think they know a thing or two about the bible and suddenly realize when they come into a forum like this that there are Catholics here who know more than they do about scripture and certainly know more than them about history. This should not come as a surprise, as they run across Catholics in the door to door ministry who do not know their faith as they should, and JW’s themselves know nothing about their own religions history. I will pray for Nick.
 
jihargus,

You make some good points but they get lost in the volumes of writting. I don’t mean to be critical, but I think a lot of what you write is wasted for this reason. My eyes begin to gloss over and my brain starts hurting. There is also a forum rule, I believe, against writing posts that continue on and on into several posts.

I’d like what you write to be read but I think most is being ignored because its just a little too much. I can’t imagine trying to answer one of your posts. It would take volumes.

Anyway, just some friendly advice. 🙂 God bless.
JL: Thanks Steve, I know I tend to go overboard. I have tried to reform but like an alcoholic I fall off the wangon. There is just so much good scripture to use. I don’t even like reading endless posts. I don’t realize when doing them how long they are till I post them.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickBatchelor
Mackbrislawn,
Please know that I do believe in the divinity or deity of Christ.
The question is to what extent do JW’s believe? Is Jesus The Almighty or a lesser god? Which one is it?
I just do not believe he is the Almighty God or part of a three in one God.
Seems to be a bit of contradiction to your opening statement. And the fact you do not believe does not change an iota of anything abot God.
I appreciate your honest observation that early Christians didn’t think of the Trinity as many do today. QEOS has a wider meaning than the Western world view of “god.”
Of course why would they? Doctrines develop over time,not instantly. Precisely why Jesus promised to guide His Church with the Holy Spirit.
The thing for me is my God has no God.
And what made you believe Christianity has taught God had another God?
The moment you begin to worship someone other than yourself you cannot be that God…
🤷 Come again?
At every stage of Jesus’ life he has someone who is God to him.
And this is were JW’s fail miserably to understand Jesus. JW’s theology barely skims the surface.
Nowhere are we told in Scripture that Jesus is the same identity as God himself. He is not that Supreme individual or Being.
LOL! Another JW lie! Do you honestly want me to rebuke your statement with Scripture?
 
Originally Posted by NickBatchelor
Pablope,
“Listen to during the Mass then”??? There was no Mass then. Mass is a Roman Catholic invention. But the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles demonstrate the eagerness for reading and applying the Scriptures and the teachings of the apostles on the part of the earliest Christians in their house “churches.”
You really need to learn history. But this much I can tell you,there most certainly was no JW organization which popped up centuries later. Okay, how could the early Christians read and apply the scriptures when the NT was not complete and the majority of Christians did not own a Bible? You belief is extra-biblical.
 
JL: Thanks Steve, I know I tend to go overboard. I have tried to reform but like an alcoholic I fall off the wangon. There is just so much good scripture to use. I don’t even like reading endless posts. I don’t realize when doing them how long they are till I post them.
I’ve fallen into the same thing many times. Reading your posts I am always saying to myself “I hope someone is getting this”. That is my only point. I want them to get what you are saying. 👍
 
T-More,

God’s holy spirit is personified in Scripture and can, for example, teach. We often say the “Bible” speaks of such and such. Or the “Bible” teaches us something here. My Bible is not a person is it? And neither is yours. It does “answer” and clear up many questions when it comes to what God’s holy spirit is.

Also consider, when the Scriptures mention that “the spirit spoke” notice that other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matthew 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with Acts 21:10, 11.)

If you say “the law” says this or that does this mean it is an individual?
Nick, the Holy Spirit is personified throughout all the New Testament. It’s called a “he” and “him” and acts on it’s own. Let’s take one example from the New World Translation, so you feel comfortable. Acts 13:1-2. Note how the Holy Spirit is speaking (emphasis mine):

1 Now in Antioch there were prophets and teachers in the local congregation, Bar´na·bas as well as Sym´e·on who was called Ni´ger, and Lucius of Cy·re´ne, and Man´a·en who was educated with Herod the district ruler, and Saul. 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

Since WTBS theology teaches that the Holy Spirit is “God’s inactive force”, or His power or “electricity”, how can it speak and act on it’s own here? This is just one of many, many examples.
 
Hi PRmerger,

You must be aware that Abel was a Witness of Jehovah and if you go back to read Hebrews 11 you can read about more of them throughout Bible history.

According to “Dictionary of Saints” by John J. Delaney, Justin Martyr was born about 100 and died about 165 (C.E.) which makes him a Christian ante-Nicene “Father” of the 2nd century, not the first century.

I do not think that Justin can be attributed with the idea of transubstantiation in the thanksgiving ceremony (Greek, eucharistia), if such attribution is being made, in the partaking of the bread and wine (mixed with water-Justin). A careful reading seems to show that Justin speaks of the cleansing value of the Christ’s flesh and blood and thus being the basis “for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration,…who…Christ has enjoined.”

He says outwardly “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these,” meaning that they do not represent a common meal for the natural nourishment of a man’s fleshly organism, but that they represent what was given, “flesh and blood for our salvation.” It was this, “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh,” that Justin points out was the thing “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation (assimilation-Philip Schaff; History of the Christian Church) are nourished.”

It was not a “transmutation” of the bread and wine to which Justin was referring, it was to the Christian’s transformation in a spiritual sense, as one taught, dedicated, and baptized. As an anointed, born-again member of Christ’s body, it was the Christian’s obligation to persist in his “transmutation” until he, in a spiritual sense, reached the stature of the Christ through the ‘nourishment’ of Jesus’ teachings.

The subject of the variances already seen in Jesus’ evening meal with his faithful eleven and what Justin discusses may be addressed for good. The Bible narrative did not place within the solemn account of the last meal water mixed with wine, whereas Justin says about the description of the “Administration of the Sacraments” (Apol. 1c. 65) “There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.”

It is of interest that he also gives recognition of pagans doing “the same thing”. (Please see above, end of quote.) Right from the beginning there were attempts to “water down the truth.” The passage at 2 Thessalonians. 2:3-12 speaks about something that would creep in and would occur until it ruled unquestioned by the spiritually blinded.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “the Mass of today differs greatly from the very simple ceremony followed by Christ and His Apostles.” And by observing the Mass frequently, even daily, Christendom has veered from what Jesus intended and has made it a common event.

Christ established the Memorial, not Mass. When he said, “This is my body…this is my blood,” he did not mean it literally, but in the sense of “this represents my body…this represents my blood.”

What the Catholics call Mass is indeed a Roman Catholic invention.
This is absolutely not true, Nick.

Have you read from St. Justin Martyr, a 1st century Catholic. (There were, incidentally, no Jehovah’s witnesses in the 1st century, and thus we have none of their writings).

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
 
T-More,

God’s holy spirit is personified in Scripture and can, for example, teach. We often say the “Bible” speaks of such and such. Or the “Bible” teaches us something here. My Bible is not a person is it? And neither is yours. It does “answer” and clear up many questions when it comes to what God’s holy spirit is.

Also consider, when the Scriptures mention that “the spirit spoke” notice that other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matthew 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with Acts 21:10, 11.)

If you say “the law” says this or that does this mean it is an individual?
We say “the law” says this or that because SOMEONE wrote the law. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit, using men to put it down on paper. If I dictate something to my secretary, who is going to have to answer for what is written, me or my secretary?
 
Hi PRmerger,

It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:10-12)

The fact is, the Jews were not always accurate in their portrayal of him, as it shows in Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. The Jews accused him of sedition on occasion. Were they correct? The Jews often said that Jesus was a Blasphemer? Another lie!

They have wrongfully assumed Jesus to be demonic at Matthew 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. How off were they? Then I think it is safe to say that they were mistaken as to a good many things.

But you ask a very reasonable question, “Why did they want to kill him?” So why would they try to stone him for blasphemy?

Consider this scriptural account in Matthew 26:63-68:

“But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, From henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See! Now YOU have heard the blasphemy. 66 What is YOUR opinion?” They returned answer: “He is liable to death.” 67 Then they spit into his face and hit him with their fists. Others slapped him in the face, 68 saying: “Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?”

It was blasphemy to them for Jesus to claim to be going to sit at the Right Hand of God. Don’t imagine that these people were rational. They were desperate mad beasts! The worst they could say was that he claimed to be the Son of God. They were not claiming he said he was God. And even if they were this is something Jesus NEVER did.

Like Jesus, Stephen was martyred on a charge of blasphemy. (Acts 6:11-13; 7:56-58) Paul later admitted he had it all wrong and was himself a blasphemer. (1 Timothy 1:13)

Acts 13:45 shows that these very confused Jews would turn against Saul who became Paul. “When the Jews got sight of the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began blasphemously contradicting the things being spoken by Paul.”

Luke wrote of the things these very conniving men did to Jesus and said, “And they went on saying many other things in blasphemy against him.” (Luke 22:65)

These false-thinking Jews did not have a leg to stand on. Jesus was from God and represented God and His name like no other. Their over reaction to Jesus’ words and their illegal methods to have him put to test death testifies to their falsehood. Jesus had every right to call himself God’s Son, they were the ones who blasphemously said he could not do so and Jesus rebuked them for it. (John 10:36) His words were forceful and plain for all honest ones to see.
Nick, please note this:
Code:
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
** So they picked up stones to throw at him.**

Now, contrast that with how the Jews responded to the blind man in John 9:9
Code:
Some said, "It is," but others said, "No, he just looks like him." He said, "I am."

So they said to him, "(So) how were your eyes opened?"
Quite a difference, no? When Jesus claims to be I AM, the Jews understood exactly what he was saying, and for that great blasphemy, they tried to kill him.

Yet, not a single murmuring among the Jews about the blind man saying, “I am he.” :hmmm:
 
Hi TheCone,

There is no reason to think that Jesus was connecting his words to Exodus 3:14 unless we have already been conditioned to think that Jesus is Jehovah himself.

What about Exodus 3:14 itself? What does it truly say? First the Hebrew expression “eh-YEH” is not properly rendered “I AM.” Are there places in the Hebrew Bible where Jehovah says "I AM…? Yes, if we turn to Deuteronomy 32:39 we find God saying “Ani Ani hu” meaning “I, I am he.” “Ani” means “I” or “I am”

That is not the expression we find at Exodus 3:14 which is “eh-YEH” which means “I will be” or “I will prove to be.” And, yes, both “ani” and “ehyeh” are related to the same verb . But Exodus 3 connects “eh-YEH” and the Divine Name not…“ani” and the Divine Name. In any case, this text does not relate to John 8:58 and thus is not an issue. Note the quotes below:

“Such a translation [in English] as ‘I am what I am’ appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs [in Hebrew] here are imperfects. ‘I am’ is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect…” —J.Wash Watt, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968, A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretive Outline, 1977, pp 140-141.

“The translation ‘I am’ [in English] is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong, because am [in such an incorrect translation] is used in the sense of essential existence. …” A. B. Davidson, “The Theology of the Old Testament” in The International Theological Library, 1920, page 55
The word [he] is added, because it’s grammatically correct in respects to the English language. Everyone adds or removes words from the original languages to clarify the translation. The problem with this addition is that it leads the reader into thinking that Jesus is not associating himself with the great “I AM” found in the Old Testament.
 
T-More,

God’s holy spirit is personified in Scripture and can, for example, teach. We often say the “Bible” speaks of such and such. Or the “Bible” teaches us something here. My Bible is not a person is it? And neither is yours. It does “answer” and clear up many questions when it comes to what God’s holy spirit is.

Also consider, when the Scriptures mention that “the spirit spoke” notice that other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matthew 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with Acts 21:10, 11.)

If you say “the law” says this or that does this mean it is an individual?
Nick, please. Acts 13:2 does not mention an angel or human. This is weak exegesis my friend. Did the Holy Spirit speak and give a command or not? Does “he” or “him” not mean “he” or “him”? JW’s have no problem seeing 144,000 as literal in a verse full of symbolism, but cannot accept simple language…
 
Hi T-More,

Both is true. Jesus is the Word or Logos, the spokesman of God. And His inspired Word are the inspired sacred documents we have in our possession. We are encouraged to “handle the word of truth aright” and to “keep a tight grip on the word of life.” (2 Timothy 2:15; Philippians 2:16)
NIck, John 17:17 is about Christ Himself, not Sacred Scripture. The Word is not a something, it is a somebody. And the Word is Jesus Christ.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
 
Hi PRmerger,

Christ established the Memorial, not Mass. When he said, “This is my body…this is my blood,” he did not mean it literally, but in the sense of “this represents my body…this represents my blood.”

What the Catholics call Mass is indeed a Roman Catholic invention.
Doesn’t “is” mean “is”? Remember my friend, Christ instituted this one year earlier in John6 (New World Translation, emphasis mine)

52 Therefore the Jews began contending with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Accordingly Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no life in yourselves. 54 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.

Nick, why would the people that Christ just fed with the miracle of the loaves and fishes leave after hearing this? If it was metaphorical, why did Christ not tell them to come back and say, “wait, you misunderstand me.”?

There was someone else who did not believe this teaching, Nick. He began to plot against Christ shortly after this.

Is the WTBS’s memorial an invention? Did early Christians pass around a plate and glass and refuse the bread and wine like most JW’s today?
 
Hi T-more,

No attempt was made to explain the content and context of these words from Yahweh/Jehovah to Israel. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I would gladly accept this since we always believe what Jehovah says. We would prefer to see Jehovah in the place of “LORD,” but again an entirely different subject.

In Isaiah we see that Jehovah is talking about how there were no man-made gods that could rival Him or equal His power. The Israelites often looked to other gods for help and Jehovah was letting them know there were not other gods that could help them.

They were figments of their imagination, manifested in man-made idols. Go back and read the entire two chapters and you will get the sense of what Jehovah was telling his fickle people.

Something also noteworthy is Jehovah also told them, “besides me there is no savior.” (Isaiah 43:11) Did Jehovah raise up “other saviors” in the Bible?

Besides, Jesus Christ who is obviously God’s means of salvation in saving mankind . Yes, he has! If you read the book of Judges, Othniel, Ehud and others were “saviors” or”deliverers” because they represented Jehovah and did so in a temporary sense. This would not make them false “saviors” would it?

The Scriptures make clear that God is the Savior in the highest and most vital sense. He is the ultimate source of salvation. But there are still others who God himself describes as saviors, those whom God is pleased to use as the agents of is salvation.

In the same way that Jehovah is our only “Savior,” yet others are still called, “saviors,” Jehovah is still, at the same time, the only “God,” yet others are nevertheless appropriately called “gods” based, most significantly, on Jehovah’s own decision to call them such.

I would have to agree with one of the most accomplished Trinitarians, Evangelical Murray J. Harris who also believes that in the Bible the term “god(s)” many in fact apply to angels or persons on earth who represent divine power and majesty. There are absolutely different kinds of applications and varying degrees of usage for the term “G/god” in Scripture.

I can support my scriptural position more fully another time. I have man TRINITARIAN sources that back what I am saying that prove when “G/god” is used in Scripture it can simply signify a lesser or representative sense.

But this does not, in any way, take away from the fact that there is only one true and Almighty God, according to Scripture. It would be helpful to remember that the term has a broad application in the original languages and within the ancient cultural context in which the Scriptures were written.

To understand it this way is not a violation or compromise to Biblical monotheism. It definitely does not make one a polytheist.
Wow! Polytheism, Nick?

Isaiah 44

6 “This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Your understanding of the Trinity doctrine is understandably flawed. Typical of JW’s, they confuse modalism with the Trinity. I think you need to figure out exacty what you’re arguing against.:rolleyes:
 
We would prefer to see Jehovah in the place of “LORD,” but again an entirely different subject.
And by doing so, look at the confusion that’s weaved, for example:

Genesis 19:1-38
23 The sun had gone forth over the land when Lot arrived at Zo´ar. 24 Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod´om and upon Go·mor´rah. 25 So he went ahead overthrowing these cities, even the entire District and all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground.

Look at sloppiness of the language used when using this rule. One being named Jehovah is making rain fire and sulphur from another being named Jehovah. Another:

Genesis 18:1-33 (emphasis mine)
1 Afterward Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mam´re, while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent about the heat of the day. 2 When he raised his eyes, then he looked and there three men were standing some distance from him. When he caught sight of them he began running to meet them from the entrance of the tent and proceeded to bow down to the earth. 3 Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be taken, please, and YOU must have YOUR feet washed. Then recline under the tree. 5 And let me get a piece of bread, and refresh YOUR hearts. Following that, YOU can pass on, because that is why YOU have passed this way to YOUR servant.” At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”

6 So Abraham went hurrying to the tent to Sarah and said: “Hurry! Get three seah measures of fine flour, knead the dough and make round cakes.” 7 Next Abraham ran to the herd and proceeded to get a tender and good young bull and to give it to the attendant, and he went hurrying to get it ready. 8 He then took butter and milk and the young bull that he had got ready and set it before them. Then he himself kept standing by them under the tree as they were eating.

9 They now said to him: “Where is Sarah your wife?” To this he said: “Here in the tent!” 10 So he continued: “I am surely going to return to you next year at this time, and, look! Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the tent entrance, and it was behind the man. 11 And Abraham and Sarah were old, being advanced in years. Sarah had stopped having menstruation. 12 Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself, saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord being old besides?” 13 Then Jehovah said to Abraham: “Why was it that Sarah laughed, saying, ‘Shall I really and truly give birth although I have become old?’ 14 Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah? At the appointed time I shall return to you, next year at this time, and Sarah will have a son.” 15 But Sarah began to deny it, saying: “I did not laugh!” For she was afraid. At this he said: “No! but you did laugh.”

16 Later the men got up from there and looked down toward Sod´om, and Abraham was walking with them to escort them. 17 And Jehovah said: “Am I keeping covered from Abraham what I am doing? 18 Why, Abraham is surely going to become a nation great and mighty, and all the nations of the earth must bless themselves by means of him. 19 For I have become acquainted with him in order that he may command his sons and his household after him so that they shall keep Jehovah’s way to do righteousness and judgment; in order that Jehovah may certainly bring upon Abraham what he has spoken about him.”

Nick, let’s start easy here. Is Jehovah having His feet washed by Abraham? By using “Jehovah” in place of “Lord”, what does this entire chapter mean? And don’t jump to chapter 19 and say it was angels. It says Jehovah in chapter 18, not angels.
 
Hi Alexander Roman,

There are many Scriptures that make clear that Jesus received “PROSKUNEO” (Greek) sometimes translated “worship.” The best thing I would encourage you to do is a word study of the meaning of this word. To let you know I gladly give “PROSKUNEO” before Christ Jesus, who is certainly worthy to receive it “to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:11) Not the Trinity.

When a Bible writer penned “PROSKUNEO” they understood the range of meaning it could have according various contexts of its use. “PROSKUNEO” could be given to God, a god, gods, or men of higher station, as well as to others one wished to show respect. The act itself would not necessarily demonstrate godly veneration, or “worship”, but it could.

Of course, Jesus is worthy of more “PROSKUNEO” than anyone else, with the exception of His God and Father who he himself gives “PROSKUNEO” to, and who alone receives it in the fullest sense. (Matthew 4:10)
Dear Nick,

This is most interesting to me and I would like to ask you to explain further your point on Christ as a deity.

Is Christ a deity Jehovah’s Witnesses would worship? Certainly, the Arians did worship Christ as such, even though they (all three Arian branches) didn’t believe that Christ was equal to God.

In what sense could Christ be a “deity” and not, at the same time, demand our worship?

Thank you sir!

Alex
 
Hi T-More,

Yes, there is only one Sovereign LORD but Jesus can certainly be called “Lord” because he is the Messianic Lord of God. Incidentally, God made him “Lord.” (Acts 2:36)

Take a look at Psalms 110:1"The LORD said unto my Lord."

Are you aware of the difference between Adonai and Adoni?

Are others who are called “Lord” false?
40.png
T_More:
 
T-More,

Recently I corresponded with one person who tried to use Genesis 19:24 to prove to me there were “Two Jehovahs/Yahwehs.”

This almost seems to silly to bother with. Looking at my Hebrew Interlinear it says: “And Jehovah rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from Jehovah out of the heavens.” (Genesis 19:24; The Interlinear Bible, A Literal Translation of the Bible, James P. Green, Sr.)

The Hebrew text shows that BOTH references are to “Jehovah.” This doesn’t mean there are two Jehovahs in anyway.

Language like this is nothing out of the ordinary as we discover in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is consistent with Hebrew idiom to speak of a person’s doing something in reference to himself. We read: “Solomon proceeded to congregate the older men . . . to King Solomon.” “To Moses (Jehovah) said: ‘Go up to Jehovah . . . ’” “Jehovah went on to say: . . . I will save them by Jehovah.’” (1 Kings 8:1; Exodus 24:1; Hosea 1:6, 7; Zechariah 10:12) In this same way Genesis 19:24 tells us that Jehovah brought the unprecedented sulfur and fire from himself, “from Jehovah, from the heavens.”

The explanatory note by Trinitarian Dr. Young in Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, for this verse states: “JEHOVAH…JEHOVAH, i.e. from Himself.”

To answer your Genesis 18 question, Angels stand in place of Jehovah in a representative sense so in this way they can be called Jehovah or God. For example, who did Jacob wrestle?
And by doing so, look at the confusion that’s weaved, for example:

Genesis 19:1-38
23 The sun had gone forth over the land when Lot arrived at Zo´ar. 24 Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod´om and upon Go·mor´rah. 25 So he went ahead overthrowing these cities, even the entire District and all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground.

Look at sloppiness of the language used when using this rule. One being named Jehovah is making rain fire and sulphur from another being named Jehovah. Another:

Genesis 18:1-33 (emphasis mine)
1 Afterward Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mam´re, while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent about the heat of the day. 2 When he raised his eyes, then he looked and there three men were standing some distance from him. When he caught sight of them he began running to meet them from the entrance of the tent and proceeded to bow down to the earth. 3 Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be taken, please, and YOU must have YOUR feet washed. Then recline under the tree. 5 And let me get a piece of bread, and refresh YOUR hearts. Following that, YOU can pass on, because that is why YOU have passed this way to YOUR servant.” At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”

6 So Abraham went hurrying to the tent to Sarah and said: “Hurry! Get three seah measures of fine flour, knead the dough and make round cakes.” 7 Next Abraham ran to the herd and proceeded to get a tender and good young bull and to give it to the attendant, and he went hurrying to get it ready. 8 He then took butter and milk and the young bull that he had got ready and set it before them. Then he himself kept standing by them under the tree as they were eating.

9 They now said to him: “Where is Sarah your wife?” To this he said: “Here in the tent!” 10 So he continued: “I am surely going to return to you next year at this time, and, look! Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the tent entrance, and it was behind the man. 11 And Abraham and Sarah were old, being advanced in years. Sarah had stopped having menstruation. 12 Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself, saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord being old besides?” 13 Then Jehovah said to Abraham: “Why was it that Sarah laughed, saying, ‘Shall I really and truly give birth although I have become old?’ 14 Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah? At the appointed time I shall return to you, next year at this time, and Sarah will have a son.” 15 But Sarah began to deny it, saying: “I did not laugh!” For she was afraid. At this he said: “No! but you did laugh.”

16 Later the men got up from there and looked down toward Sod´om, and Abraham was walking with them to escort them. 17 And Jehovah said: “Am I keeping covered from Abraham what I am doing? 18 Why, Abraham is surely going to become a nation great and mighty, and all the nations of the earth must bless themselves by means of him. 19 For I have become acquainted with him in order that he may command his sons and his household after him so that they shall keep Jehovah’s way to do righteousness and judgment; in order that Jehovah may certainly bring upon Abraham what he has spoken about him.”

Nick, let’s start easy here. Is Jehovah having His feet washed by Abraham? By using “Jehovah” in place of “Lord”, what does this entire chapter mean? And don’t jump to chapter 19 and say it was angels. It says Jehovah in chapter 18, not angels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top