Jehovah's Witnesses

[MyRdmrLvs]

dj dave;6289055:

why dont you start with the points Ive made about sighting a source as if it supports your doctrine when in fact it clearly contradicts it. why would Gods faithful servant LIE!

What no answer? thought you were feeling feisty? didnt they teach you guys what to say when the WT is proven to lie? OR is ignore and move on what they teach?

 

[raqrodriguez]

So many times the WT has been proven as a false “prophet” (the WT claims to be the prophet of God). They them selves in early publishings have admitted they have made false prophesies.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Church is united since the first day of Christ’s ministry. The word Christian is a title, it means absolutely nothing if you don’t take it literally.

It literally means the complete belief in every single doctrine of God’s religion and to have fellowship with Christ. This is done completely by the Individual and God, the Mediator is Jesus… no saints.

Christian is just another word for Calvinist.

Praying to the dead is blasphemy, are you aware of this?

Also why are you using Catholic terms… there’s no priests/bishops in JW.

Who are you people saying all this junk yo u,not the God of the dead but of the living Mk 12’26-27

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Church is united since the first day of Christ’s ministry. The word Christian is a title, it means absolutely nothing if you don’t take it literally.

It literally means the complete belief in every single doctrine of God’s religion and to have fellowship with Christ. This is done completely by the Individual and God, the Mediator is Jesus… no saints.

Christian is just another word for Calvinist.

Praying to the dead is blasphemy, are you aware of this? some one does not know a thing about the Bible

Also why are you using Catholic terms… there’s no priests/bishops in JW.

Who are you people saying all this junk your,not the God of the dead but of the living Mk 12’26-27

Who said praying to the dead is blasphemy do not know what he is talking about unles you are a JW and we all know the JW are a cult

 

[spn82756]

There are no sacraments.

John Calvin simply brought Christians back to Jesus and to the supernatural religion of Christianity.

Instead of man’s religions, such as Arminianism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yes… I quote James White.

Oh you forgot the Anglican Church by name.

Let’s see…what Protestant Churches did you forget? Care to list them?

John Calvin is right up there with mohammad. Wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Fidei;6277257:

It is a big discussion once we get into how religions behaved during the war of course. A very defining era I think that really showed the men from the boys.
The Jews were exterminated for ethnic reasons. Catholic and protestant converts were not spared.
Poland suffered terribly. 2 million ethnic Poles died in the camps. Poland has a huge catholic population. There may have been the priests you were thinkng of. (Possibly owing more to them being influential Poles than because they were Catholic.)

The reason I brought up Nazi germany was Rolltide presented a history lesson that focused only on mistakes and errors of the JW’s.
He totally left out (on purpose I am sure) any mention of the courageous stands the JW’s have made because of their faith, and the persecution they endured because of this.
Argueably more than any other religion in the 20th century.
(He thought Rutherford having a car available for resurrected ones was more relevant to history it seemed)
I had to be cheeky and show that his was a *very biased *

history lesson.

If I somehow had everything a person has ever said on computer, I could comb through and pick out the most unkind, selfish, thoughtless things, but ignore all the kind, generous, noble things - and paint him as a monster.
I might get away without lying! but it would not be an accurate picture.

It’s clear Rolltide did something similar with the JW history, so I had to be cheeky and point that out. (Others reading his post might think it was the whole truth)

The JW are a cult and have the most corrupt bible in the world,get a Christian Bible and read John 1;1

 

[dj_dave]

I would be interested in the verses in Corinthians that call satan theos. I ckecked and didn’t come up with theos at all. One was satanas and the other was satan.(Greek) from the Strongs.

2 Cor 4:4

2 Corinthians 4:4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ.
KJV with Strong’s
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest __ the light of the glorious gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them
Original Word: θεός
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh’-os)
Short Definition: God

Word Origin
of uncertain origin
Definition
God, a god

ἐν en 1722 PREP case
οἷς ois 3739 R-DPM whose
ὁ o 3588 T-NSM
**θεὸς theos 2316 N-NSM god **
τοῦ tou 3588 T-GSM
αἰῶνος aiōnos 165 N-GSM world
τούτου toutou 5127 D-GSM of this
ἐτύφλωσεν etuphlōsen 5186 V-AAI-3S has blinded

 

[dj_dave]

MyRdmrLvs;6295261:

What no answer? thought you were feeling feisty? didnt they teach you guys what to say when the WT is proven to lie? OR is ignore and move on what they teach?

You’re late! I have already addressed all of your statements in my eariler posts. Search and you will find.

Also, web.archive.org/web/20031204162016/mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm

Addresses many many of the accusations againt us.

I have not received an answer to my question. If there are so many Christians on earth how do you explain Matthew 7:13.14 ALSO if Chriist is God how do you explain

(1 Corinthians 15:22-28) …For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 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. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
Can you see how EVERYONE in the universe will be subjct to God just as Jesus is?

And while we are on the subject of the Trinity, Why is 'the third part of the triune God" sandwiched in at 2 Cor 6:6

Also notice the clear separation of these: (1 Timothy 5:21) ..I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to keep these things without prejudgment, doing nothing according to a biased leaning.

moreover, --No mention of the holy spirit?

Listen, the more I think about this, we can continue to talk about history of JW’s ; misinterpreted scriptures; and anything else that we feel each of us in mistaken in… but it only cause disruption.

(2 Timothy 2:23-26) 23Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights. 24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come back to their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him for the will of that one.

I think we ALL (on these posts) accept the truth that (John 6:44) No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him;. . .

Those questions above are just some basic questions that got me to study in the first place. No one needs to address them. I’m sure that eveyone has their own answers
to them anyway.

Some of us are right and some are wrong. I will leave this in God’s hands. Let’s just keep each other in each other’s prayers. Good bye

 

[spn82756]

MyRdmrLvs;6300737:

I have not received an answer to my question. If there are so many Christians on earth how do you explain Matthew 7:13.14 ALSO if Chriist is God how do you explain

(1 Corinthians 15:22-28) …For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 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.

28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
Can you see how EVERYONE in the universe will be subjct to God just as Jesus is?

From the Catholic NAB on 1 Cor 15:20-28

Pauls perspective expands to cosmis dimensions, as he describes the climax of history, the end. His viewpoint is still Christological as in vv 20-23. vs 24 and 28 describe Christ’s final relations to His enemies and His Father in language that is both royal and military. vv 25-28 insert a proof from scripture (ps 110) into this descprition. The viewpoint is also theological, for God is the ultimate agent and end, and likewise soteriological, for we are the beneficiaries of all the action.

And while we are on the subject of the Trinity, Why is 'the third part of the triune God" sandwiched in at 2 Cor 6:6

HUH?

Also notice the clear separation of these: (1 Timothy 5:21) ..I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to keep these things without prejudgment, doing nothing according to a biased leaning.

moreover, --No mention of the holy spirit?

The Holy Spirit procedes from the Father and the Son.

(2 Timothy 2:23-26) 23Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights. 24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come back to their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him for the will of that one.

I think we ALL (on these posts) accept the truth that (John 6:44) No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him;. . .

Those questions above are just some basic questions that got me to study in the first place. No one needs to address them. I’m sure that eveyone has their own answers
to them anyway.

Some of us are right and some are wrong. I will leave this in God’s hands. Let’s just keep each other in each other’s prayers. Good bye

Yes…let’s keep each other in our prayers.

 

[JeanneH]

JeanneH;6300635:

I would be interested in the verses in Corinthians that call satan theos. I ckecked and didn’t come up with theos at all. One was satanas and the other was satan.(Greek) from the Strongs.

2 Cor 4:4

2 Corinthians 4:4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς

τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ.
KJV with Strong’s
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest __ the light of the glorious gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them
Original Word: θεός
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh’-os)
Short Definition: God

Word Origin
of uncertain origin
Definition
God, a god

ἐν en 1722 PREP case
οἷς ois 3739 R-DPM whose
ὁ o 3588 T-NSM
**θεὸς theos 2316 N-NSM god **
τοῦ tou 3588 T-GSM
αἰῶνος aiōnos 165 N-GSM world
τούτου toutou 5127 D-GSM of this
ἐτύφλωσεν etuphlōsen 5186 V-AAI-3S has blinded

Thanks Dave I guess I was looking up the word satan and not god.
when you are right your are right.

 

[reslight]

I also have issues regarding their “Jehovah cannot be a triune God” What is their reasoning if John stated that the Word IS God? and that Christ entitles himself as I AM?

I am not with the JWs, but have an interest in defending against adding to the Bible the trinity doctrine. I have started at the beginning of the posts and am taking them as they were posted, but, for the most part, only where some scriptures are being referred to. In this post, I will be briefly examining John 1:1,2.

It is not so much that “Jehovah cannnot be a triune God”, but rather, that the Bible no where reveals the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a triune God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always revealed as one person, and never as more than one person. All through the New Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always distinguished from His son, and His son is not once revealed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The great spirit of human imagination has been untilized so as to imagine such, assumptions have been formulated into doctrine in order to defend such, and these imaginations and assumptions have to overlaid upon any scripture so as to add these to, and read these into, any scripture that is alleged to support the triune God dogma. Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2 very pointedly distinguish between the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His son.

John (John 1:1,2) does not say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but John clearly distinguishes the Logos from God whom the Logos was with. John twice says that the Logos was with God, and Jesus identified “God” whom he was with as the “only true God.” (John 17:3,5) What the trinitarian has done is to imagine and assume that the first instance of “THEOS” in John 1:1 refers to their alleged first person of the triune God, and the second instance of “THEOS” refers to their alleged second person of their alleged triune God.

John in the context makes it plain that the Logos was with Ton Theon in the beginning, stating this twice. Thus it should be evident that John is not saying that the Logos was Ton Theon with whom he was with in the beginning. Therefore, in saying that the Logos was theos, it should also be evident that John is not using theos as he applies it to the Logos in the same manner as he speaks of Ton Theon with whom the Logos was with in the beginning. Rather than using the great spirit of human imagination so as to imagine and add to the scripture that this is speaking of two alleged persons of triune God, the most direct way is to simply allow scripture to explain scripture.

That there is a secondary meaning that is given to the word theos is shown by Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 82:6 as recorded by John in John 10:34,35. Jesus said these “gods” (Greek, theoi, plural of theos) are those to whom the Logos of God came. But why does God refer to them as “gods”? Is he saying that they are idols, or false gods? No, there is nothing to give us any reason to believe this. Rather, we believe that he is showing that there is more than one way that the word THEOS can be used. Theos does not always mean God Almighty — EL SHADDAI. Theos in the NT does reflect the Hebraic meaning of words EL and ELOHIM, that is, might, strength, power. Thus, THEOS in the NT, like the Hebrew EL and ELOHIM of the OT, when applied to others than Yahweh, does not mean Supreme Being. John emphasizes twice that the LOGOS is not TON THEON, by stating that the LOGOS was with TON THEON. Jesus himself speaks of his having a glory with the only true God before the world of mankind was made. (John 17:1,3,5) Thus, we need to apply John’s usage of THEOS here as to one who is not Yahweh, the only true God. Jesus shows this an application of the words for “god” to others than Yahweh when he applies “theoi” [plural of THEOS] to the sons of God to whom the Logos came. (Psalms 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) Jesus was with Ton Theon but he was not Ton Theon whom he was with. He was, however, one of might, one of power, having a glory with his God and Father before the world of mankind was made. — John 17:5.

Since the word “theos” in the phrase “the Word was God [theos]” is not preceded by the article “ho” (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 and 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun; “the Word was mighty”, which would be a more preferred way to translate the phrase. Theos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “elohim” which can be rendered as “mighty” as the King James Version does in Genesis 30:8 and 1 Samuel 14:15, and as applied to Moses in Exodus 7:1. Thus, in keeping within what has been revealed by the holy spirit in the scriptures, the proper thought of John 1:1 should be: In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with TON THEON, and the LOGOS was mighty.

I want to point out that the KJV renders forms of the words EL (Strong’s Hebrew #410) and ELOHIM (Strong’s Hebrew #430) with terms showing mightiness or strength. Here are a few scriptures: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). The point is the King James translators, in all these verses, did not render the word for deity/divinity [EL] as “God” or as “god”, but with terms of might, strength, great, power and might. Nor could would assume in all these places that the words for “god” are being used in the sense of a false “god”.

 

[reslight]

I also have issues regarding their “Jehovah cannot be a triune God” What is their reasoning if John stated that the Word IS God? and that Christ entitles himself as I AM?

The one anointed by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 4:27) never entitles himself as EHYEH, if this is the thought behind the phrase “Christ [meaning, anointed one] entitles himself as I AM.” The scripture often given to support such a claim is John 8:58, and, although we do find the phrase “I am” in that verse in most translations, Jesus did not use that phrase so as “entitle” himself with that phrase. He was answering the question regarding his age. (John 8:57) He was simply using the present tense in a past tense situation, that of the time “before” Abraham’s being brought into existence. Jesus was speaking of his continued existence in the past – “before” Abraham’s existence. Jesus was not taking the first person form – EHYEH – of the holy name as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob declared of Himself in Exodus 3:14,15. In effect, as I could say that “I am before my son in existence/age,” so Jesus could say “I am before Abraham in existence/age.”

Regardless, any idea that Jesus was here claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has to be imagined in the spirit of human imagination, and to get trinity into it, it further has be formulated into assumptions, and then the assumptions have to added to, and read into, what Jesus said. The trinitarian has to imagine and assume that EGO EIMI – I AM – in some way or other is being used by Jesus as a claim that he is Yahweh/Jehovah, and then it has to be further imagined and assumed that Jesus was not claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who had sent him (“I came forth … from God,… he sent me” – John 8:42), but rather that he was claiming to be the second person of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; it would further have to be imagined and assumed that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who sent Jesus must be the first person of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[reslight]

You got that right! How could God’s “spirit-directed prophet or the humble and discreet SLAVE” (the early WTS) gone wrong to a very low level as to believing the power of the pyramid?.

Having come across this reference to Russell, I feel a need to respond to this, since it misrepresents what Russell believed. Russell never believed in an authoritarian organization such the “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” He was a non-sectarian.

Nor did Russell ever say anything about “the power of the pyramid.” He did not believe in such things as “pyramid power.” I do not know of anyone who was promoting such in his day, but if such had come up in his day, I am sure he would have classified it as a form of spiritism.

Russell did believe that the Great Pyramid was put in the middle of Egypt, and on the border thereof, by Jehovah (Yahweh), as spoken of in Isaiah 19:19. In doing this, however, he did not attribute any “power” to the Great Pyramid. He believed that the Great Pyramid, by its unique passageways, provided a witness to the plan of God through Jesus as the savior. Russell was not the first, and to this day many – including myself – also believe this. Those who have studied this know that the testimony concerning the Great Pyramid is too overwhelming to honestly ignore.
ctr.reslight.net/category/pyramidology

 

[Fidei]

but rather, that the Bible no where reveals the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a triune God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always revealed as one person, and never as more than one person. All through the New Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always distinguished from His son, and His son is not once revealed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Then you havent really read the bible then or didnt accept what is said.

Gen 1:26: "Then God said, “Let Us [plural] make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…”.
Here the divine Word speaks the creation of man along with the Father and his Holy Spirit thus referring to “us”.

Isaiah 48:16 “Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.”
here, the pre-incarnate son speaks on behalf of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Gen 18:1: “The LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.”
Gen 18:2: “So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him.”
it further states…
Gen 18:9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they[plural] asked him.
“There, in the tent,” he said.
10 Then the** LORD**[singular] said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”

Gen 19:24: “Then the LORD rained brimestone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.”
Note that the LORD (on Earth) rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD (in the heavens)

the Bible no where reveals the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a triune God.

 

[Fidei]

Reslight.

Reading in context would help you understand how Christ calls himself “I AM” not in a way the JW’s misinterpret it as “he was there before Abraham”

John 8:56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” The the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’ and they picked up stones to throw at him.

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Why would the Jews throw stones at a man who claims to have lived for generations? they would simply presume that Christ was a crazy man, yet they didn’t, but rather threw stones at him because they immediately recognized his claim same with the great “I AM” in the burning bush at the time of Moses.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

The one anointed by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 4:27) never entitles himself as EHYEH, if this is the thought behind the phrase “Christ [meaning, anointed one] entitles himself as I AM.” The scripture often given to support such a claim is John 8:58, and, although we do find the phrase “I am” in that verse in most translations, Jesus did not use that phrase so as “entitle” himself with that phrase. He was answering the question regarding his age. (John 8:57) He was simply using the present tense in a past tense situation, that of the time “before” Abraham’s being brought into existence. Jesus was speaking of his continued existence in the past – “before” Abraham’s existence. Jesus was not taking the first person form – EHYEH – of the holy name as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob declared of Himself in Exodus 3:14,15. In effect, as I could say that “I am before my son in existence/age,” so Jesus could say “I am before Abraham in existence/age.”

Regardless, any idea that Jesus was here claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has to be imagined in the spirit of human imagination, and to get trinity into it, it further has be formulated into assumptions, and then the assumptions have to added to, and read into, what Jesus said. The trinitarian has to imagine and assume that EGO EIMI – I AM – in some way or other is being used by Jesus as a claim that he is Yahweh/Jehovah, and then it has to be further imagined and assumed that Jesus was not claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who had sent him (“I came forth … from God,… he sent me” – John 8:42), but rather that he was claiming to be the second person of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; it would further have to be imagined and assumed that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who sent Jesus must be the first person of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

there are other places where Jesus says I AM, I used a concordance and went though all the words of Jesus looking for the word AM and used a Greek Diaglot and found several. I dont have access to my library at the moment but one example off the top of my head is when He was in the bout and calmed the sea if you want to check it out yourself . I dont argue in defense of the trinity doctrine but I found MUCH scripture that proves Jesus is in fact the I AM that spoke from the burning bush.

  There are many quotes from the old testament that are clearly referring to I AM and they are used in the new testament to refer to Jesus.  I would think that would be rather blasphemous if He were not God.

   Consider the prophesy of Danial,  Christ referred to Himself as Son of man and that they would all see Him coming on the clouds.    they took great offence at this statement, why? read the prophecy carefully consider the characteristics of who Jesus is saying He is in the prophecy and then read the God given meaning of the prophecy.  What happened to the Son of Man?  Who is He in the God given interpretation?
   Consider the prophecy of Jerramia(SP?),    Who is speaking and Who says He was priced at 30 pieces of silver?? this is clearly    In case you are not aware LORD all caps in most Bibles has been substituted for the tetragrammatin(sp?) (the I AM)
    When I first began looking into who Jesus is what the Bible had to say about Him I was willing to go wherever the Bible took me and despite a  about 150 Bible studies with 2 and sometimes 3 JWs, I am totally convinced that Jesus is the I AM.

 

[Bill_Pick]

JeanneH;6300635:

I would be interested in the verses in Corinthians that call satan theos. I ckecked and didn’t come up with theos at all. One was satanas and the other was satan.(Greek) from the Strongs.

2 Cor 4:4

2 Corinthians 4:4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς

τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ.
KJV with Strong’s
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest __ the light of the glorious gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them
Original Word: θεός
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh’-os)
Short Definition: God

Word Origin
of uncertain origin
Definition
God, a god

ἐν en 1722 PREP case
οἷς ois 3739 R-DPM whose
ὁ o 3588 T-NSM
**θεὸς theos 2316 N-NSM god **
τοῦ tou 3588 T-GSM
αἰῶνος aiōnos 165 N-GSM world
τούτου toutou 5127 D-GSM of this
ἐτύφλωσεν etuphlōsen 5186 V-AAI-3S has blinded

How can you use the most correctable Bible in the world and put it against the Christian bible it just does not work,Read John !:1 from your bible,now read a Christians and see what it said…Did you know what men wrote the Bible for your cult, not one of them knew and Greek

 

[reslight]

Then you havent really read the bible then or didnt accept what is said.

Gen 1:26: "Then God said, “Let Us [plural] make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…”.
Here the divine Word speaks the creation of man along with the Father and his Holy Spirit thus referring to “us”.

If I say to my friend, “Let’s go to shopping,” I am saying that my friend is Ronald? God can most certainly say to His son, “Let us” without meaning that His Son is Himself.

On the other hand, what the trinitarian has to do is use the great spirit of human imagination so as to assume that “Let us” refers to more than one person of God.

Gen 18:1: “The LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.”
Gen 18:2: “So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him.”

it further states…
Gen 18:9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they[plural] asked him.
“There, in the tent,” he said.
10 Then the** LORD**[singular] said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”

Gen 19:24: “Then the LORD rained brimestone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.”
Note that the LORD (on Earth) rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD (in the heavens)

And yet, we find nothing in these scriptures about Yahweh being three persons. Such an idea has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the verses.

We first read that Yahweh appeared to Abram, and then, Abram saw three men (angels – messengers – of Yahweh). Angels of Yahweh sometimes do speak for, and are spoken to, as through they were Yahweh of whom they are sent as messengers. It is similar to an interpreter in a courtroom, who, on the surface, may seem to be addressed and speaking as though both parties for whom he is interpreting.

What the trinitarian has to do is use the great spirit of human imagination so as to think that these three angels of Yahweh are instead three persons of Yahweh, and further assume that these three persons of Yahweh are the three persons of their alleged triune God.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]Fidei;
Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Why would the Jews throw stones at a man who claims to have lived for generations? they would simply presume that Christ was a crazy man, yet they didn’t, but rather threw stones at him because they immediately recognized his claim same with the great “I AM” in the burning bush at the time of Moses.[/SIGN]

Did Jesus really break the sabbath?
Didn’t the Jewish leaders claim God was their Father? John 8:41

take a look at the context.
Jesus identifies himself as the one “sent” by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as “Father” and “God” (8:54). Is not the sender
The superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his “own initiative” and he can only speak what he was “taught” by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God’s and “keeps His word” (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God?
So why do the Jews try to kill him? **Probably for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. **
Let us look at the context even more closely:
Jesus says they will die (v.21)
Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40)
Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41)
Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44)
Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58)
Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676)
It was only after all this, and after FIVE “I AM’s” [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put.
Was Jesus claiming equality with God at John 10:34?
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye
are gods? {10:35} If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came (and the scripture cannot be broken), {10:36} say ye of him, whom
the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest;
because I said, I am [the] Son of God?” ASV
Here Jesus was quoting Psalm 82 where human judges are called gods. Does it not make sense that the Son of God can be called a god also?
Jesus was adamant about the ignorance of the Jews, so we should not put too much stock in his enemies.
Matt. 12:34 “Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
Matt. 22:29 “But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

ALSO did you know that the LXX translation of Ex 3:14 is not literal. A literal rendering would be one akin to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s, “esomai hos esomia.” Translated, this reads “I will be what who I will be.” This is just like the TRUE reading at Exodus 3:14. If you check the footnotes in most mainstream Bibles, like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NEB (but not the NASB)etc, you will see that this is the case. But why is this the true reading. Well 2 verses before the same Hebrew word (EHYEH) is used, but there it is universally translated “I WILL BE.” Actually, for a translation of the Hebrew to be “I AM THAT I AM” would require the original Hebrew to read “ANI ASHER ANI”, a reading that we do not have at this verse.
It should also be noted that, in the LXX, God is identified as the “ho on”, THE BEING, not the I AM. Yet, this is not carried forth in John 8:58.

Don’t want to argue…just my thoughts on this mesmerizing subject taken from
web.archive.org/web/20031008012759/mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/john8.58files.htm

 

[T_More]

It never ceases to amaze me how JW’s go around and around trying to tear down the teaching of the Trinity. They are very much like St Thomas, in that they cannot believe unless they can see. Yet, they can accept Mary becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit, Christ walking on water, the raising of Lazarus and ultimately, Christ rising from the dead. It was only after St Thomas could stick his fingers in the nail holes did he believe and declared, “My Lord and my God!” And did Christ correct this exclaimation? Did He reprove him for making such a statement? What would this statement of St Thomas have meant for someone like him, a Jew? Would this not be a offense punishable by death by the Jews? Yet Christ praised him! “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (NIV)

What did the early Christians believe? It wasn’t until the Arianism heresy in the third century did the denial of Christ’s divinity come forward. The ones taught by the apostles themselves believed Christ to be God, fully man. Were they wrong? All of them taught what came to be defined as the Holy Trinity. The evidence of the teachings from the apostles is undeniable.

The theology of the WTS is the ultimate example of Sola Scriptura run amuck. It starts with Russell, like so many others who came before him, who felt he was the one who truly understood the meaning of the bible and taken to the ultimate expression of Sola Scriptura by his successors by starting from scratch and re-writing the New Testament with their own ever changing theology guidng the way wanted to understand the bible. The evidence is overwhelming. All one has to do is look at their own Interlinear and see the words changed, taken away and even inserted to force fit their teachings.

If anyone is interested, I’d be happy to post scans from the WTS’ 1969 Interlinear that clearly shows what I mean.