JW's - Proving to JW's that Jesus is God

[BibleSteve]

stopping at page 24 post 350

Among us Jews “firstborn” simply means Preeminence.

You are simply reading your theology into the text where it is not.

Actually it is the opposite. I’ve presented a Bible only argument, while you have supported your view by quoting various imperfect men’s opinions.

There’s only about 30 times in the Bible where it says “firstborn of…”, so it’s easy to review each and every occurrance.

in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.

“First born of Israel” part of Israel? Yes
“First born of Pharaoh” part of Pharoahs family? YES
“First born of the beasts”, part of the beasts? YES
“First born of man” part of the group called man? YES
“First born of your sons” Part of the son? YES
“Firstborn of the dead”? Was Jesus part of the dead? YES
“First born of Creation”? part of the Creation? Trinitarians want to say NO because of Theological Bias.

**That **is reading a theological belief into the text.

What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15?

Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

Now, specifically on the phrase “firstborn from the dead”. Obviously, Jesus was not the first resurrection in the Bible, so Trinitarians will see this as proof the word “firstborn” has another meaning, suggesting it means things like prime, most excellent, most distinguished. However, Jesus was “first” chronologically in a very special way. He was the first raised from the dead to endless life. Everyone else previously resurrected later died again.

 

[BibleSteve]

For example, the NWT adds the word “[other]” several times, when in fact the word otehr does not in anyway appear in the text. If paul wanted to say “all other things” then there were greek words he would be able to use. And, yet he did not use any of those words at all. Not one manuscript supports the word “other” in the text. So, add the word other simply shows us the dishonestly of the watchtower translators.

Looks like you have a non-JW professor who would disagree with you:

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

Scroll down and read the section under Chapter 7.

" It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the added words are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. . . ."

" The decision whether or not to make something implicit explicit is up to the translators, and cannot be said to be either right or wrong in itself. Accuracy only comes into it when assessing whether something made explicit in the translation really is implied the Greek. If it is, then it is accurate to make it explicit. In Colossians 1:15-20, it is accurate to add other because other is implied in the Greek. (pp. 83-87)"

 

[b_justb]

Why are you still using this reference when I posted the person being referenced in this link as being totally opposed to the JW’s using his work as proof of of their theology, his clarification of his stance that is not in line with what JW say he is saying, and his own reports of his fellow professors disagreeing with his theories and conclusions on the matter? This is rather odd, Steve.

Looks like you have a non-JW professor who would disagree with you:

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

Scroll down and read the section under Chapter 7.

" It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the added words are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. . . ."

" The decision whether or not to make something implicit explicit is up to the translators, and cannot be said to be either right or wrong in itself. Accuracy only comes into it when assessing whether something made explicit in the translation really is implied the Greek. If it is, then it is accurate to make it explicit. In Colossians 1:15-20, it is accurate to add other because other is implied in the Greek. (pp. 83-87)"

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Dear BostonCatholic,

Thank you for mentioning this. It’s nice to see confirmation from someone else that the argument about Jesus forgiving sins doesn’t PROVE he’s God. It does fit with the model that he was authorized to do so by YHWH, like the apostles were

John 5

16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because** whatever the Father does the Son also does**. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

So, Jesus has the ablity to do exactly what God the Father has the ability to do. He works in concert with the Father. He sees the Father say forgive someone, and Jesus does the same himself. Whatever ablity the Father has, Jesus has that same ability.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

By the way, speaking of apostles… Here’s a little Trinity reasoning point:

Why was the word “apostle” appropriate to use for the group of men Jesus selected? What meaning did it have? Why was the same word used for Jesus?

Here’s why:

The Greek word a·po′sto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stel′lo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Mt 10:5; Mr 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·po′sto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Heb 3:1; compare Mt 10:40; 15:24; Lu 4:18,*43; 9:48; 10:16; Joh 3:17; 5:36,*38; 6:29,*57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was sent forth by God as his appointed and commissioned representative.

Jesus sent forth these men and called them apostles. We are not confused about Jesus and the apostles being part of a Trinity.

However,Jehovah sent forth Jesus and called him an apostle, but Trinitarians want to believe that Jesus is Jehovah.

The logic seems inconsistent.

mb-soft.com/believe/txn/apostle.htm

---

NASB: Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; (NASB ©1995)​

GWT: Brothers and sisters, you are holy partners in a heavenly calling. So look carefully at Jesus, the apostle and chief priest about whom we make our declaration of faith. (GOD’S WORD®)​

KJV: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;​

ASV: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even Jesus;​

BBE: For this reason, holy brothers, marked out to have a part in heaven, give thought to Jesus the representative and high priest of our faith;​

DBY: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus,​

WEY: Therefore, holy brethren, sharers with others in a heavenly invitation, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest whose followers we profess to be.​

WBS: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;​

WEB: Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus;​

YLT: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and chief priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,

Ah, exactly where are the disciples called “high priests”? yes, we all are part of a “royal priesthood”, but we are not called “high priest”, only Jesus is within the christian faith. Yes, there was an high priest in judaism, but only Jesus is the high priest in Christian theology, why is that?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

You do not understand the Trinity. It is your logic that is flawed because you assign to the Trinity what is not there and then speak against it.

No Christian thinks the Son is the Father. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are not confused. You really need to know what you’re talking about before attempting to antagonise. You just look like a dolt when you do this. You deny the Trinity, so be it. But under no circumstances are you to attempt to mock anyone who believes in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Suggested readings:
Saint Pope Leo the Great’s (famous) Tome to Flavian (See item 3 in the link)

Tertullian’s Apology

If I had a penny for every time, we told a JW that the Son of God is not God the Father in our theology, that they are seperate persons who have the same divine nature, I would be a trillionaire.

 

[qui_est_ce]

One thing that is missed here is WHO DECIDED WHAT WOULD BE THE BIBLE!!! It is the Catholic Church. In 389 AD the Council of Rome affirmed the canon which is used by the Catholic church today. Protestants, beginning with Martin Luther, removed serveral books from the Bible. Luther even removed the book James, because it was quote “strawey.” It did not support Luther’s theory of “faith alone.” He eventually had to put it back, but there are several books of the OT, which are missing from the Protestant Bible: During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

Our understadning of ancient languages and customs is constantly growing. We have to try to be as accurate as possible. As our understanding grows, we have to update, or tweak some of the language the bible. Imagine what the Dead Sea Scrolls did for our understanding!

It is known fact that Protestants also ADDED words to the bible, such as “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory.” This is because in copying manuscripts, CATHOLIC monks, who preserved that Bible over the centuries, indeed over a millenium, wrote litttle side notes in the margins.

You can always find an expert who will support what you believe. You can also go into the Bible and twist things to your own interpretation. That is why there are so many spin-off Protestant denominations today. Everyone thinks the Bible reveals itself, but the fact that so many people have so many interpretations proves that it is not self-reveletory.

So, Steve, orthodox Catholics will never come around to your interpretations and translations, because they have no authenticity. You can try to prove all you want, be we do not accept your tranlators. For every expert you come up to support your translation, we can come up with at least a hundred that disagree with yours.

In addition, Steve, you are no expert in ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew, or Aramic. Neither am I. All you can do is quote people who agree with your point of view. And a lot of the people you quote, JW or not JW, do not have the suppport of the majority of theologians and translators.

Looks like you have a non-JW professor who would disagree with you:

" It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the added words are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. . . ."

" The decision whether or not to make something implicit explicit is up to the translators, and cannot be said to be either right or wrong in itself. Accuracy only comes into it when assessing whether something made explicit in the translation really is implied the Greek. If it is, then it is accurate to make it explicit. In Colossians 1:15-20, it is accurate to add other because other is implied in the Greek. (pp. 83-87)"

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

---

I’m not aware of God ever deserting Himself in sacred Scripture or sacred Tradition, but I am aware of God being three persons, one God.
THE REASON that Jesus says “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” is because He is QUOTING Psalm 22:2; and in both instances, Jesus does not utter this quote in Greek, but in Hebrew (in Matthew’s version) and/or Aramaic (in Mark’s version). So, it is not the same term used by Thomas in John’s Gospel at all. Also, the reason that Jesus utters this quote from Psalm 22 is NOT because He is someone different from God, but rather because He is speaking as the prophesied Suffering Servant (the Jewish Messiah) Who has taken the sins of all mankind upon Himself, and so is speaking AS A MAN at this point. The words of Jesus (quoting the Psalm) are the words of every sinner like you and myself who is isolated from God (see 2 Corinth 5:21).

When Jesus quoted the opening words of Psalms 22, he was bringing to mind the full Psalm in the ears of those who heard him.

Psalms 22:24 plainly says, that God did not forsake him,

For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

Read the whole Psalm, and your interpretation fades away.

 

[mikeledes]

Dear Jaypeeto4,

Yes, that is a very strong statement and so at first glance I too would think it would be correct in viewing that as an absolute. Similarly, I see the same sort of absolute statement here at Isa 43:11

(Isaiah 43:11) I—I am YHWH, and besides me there is no savior.”

And yet, I find other statements in the Bible that show when YHWH does some saving activity, he sends someone to do it for him and calls them a “savior”. How is this possible for someone else to be called “savior” when YHWH specifically and absolutely said “besides me there is no savior?” Read Judges 3:9 very carefully and note that YHWH is the one that “saves” them, but he does this by means of raising up a “savior”

(Judges 3:9) And the sons of Israel began to call to YHWH for aid. Then YHWH raised a savior up for the sons of Israel that he might save them, Oth´ni•el the son of Ke´naz, the younger brother of Ca´leb.

Wait! Didn’t YHWH specifically say “besides me there is no savior”? Wasn’t that an absolute statement? Apparently, when he makes statements like that, it does not prevent him from working through others and having them assume the same descriptive title.

At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh•shi´a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

So likewise, when YHWH makes an absolute statement about him doing all the creating, I would look for other Bible statements about him accomplishing this THROUGH someone else. And I notice he talks about doing it through or “by means of” his Son Jesus.

(Colossians 1:15-16) … All things have been created through him and for him.

Thank you for your comments and the opportunity to reason with you.

Steve

This argument does not hold water. When God asserts that there is no savior than me, he is asserting that there is no one that does the saving work that he specificaly does. In other words, there are different kinds of salvation and thus different kinds of saviors. If you fall into the train tracks and I rescue you, I am your savior. But I am not your savior in the sense that God is your savior. When God says there is no savior like Him, He is talking about a specific kind of salvation that only He can provide.

Regarding creation, however, he is clearly asserting a clear fact, namely, that he was by Himself when He created the world and there was no one with Him. He even asserts that he created everything with His own hands, thus excluding any possibility of anyone doing the work for or with Him. He even asks in the NWT “WHO WAS WITH ME?”

The question I have is how do the JWs work out the logistics of creation. Did God provide Jesus the blueprint and Jesus did the actual work? How do you reconcile that with passages that clearly stated God created everything with His own hands. The expression “own hand” specifically excludes any representaives or the idea of anyone doing the work for Him. For example, let’s say, Steve, that you gave me a letter and told me to give it to Jaypeeto. Later on in the day, I tell you “I gave it to Jaypeeto.” Now that can be ambiguous. It can mean that I gave it to Jaypeeto personally or I sent someone to give it to him for me. But if I tell you, Steve, that “I gave it to Jaypeeto with my own hands”, that means I personally and directly gave him the letter and thus excludes any delegates, representatives, or messengers.

When God says that He created the world with His own hands, He is clearly stating that He personally and directly created the world by Himself, no delgates or representatives. Since we believe Jesus is God, these verses are not problematic. Since you see Jesus as a created partner in creation, you have a serious problem reconciling this with God’s express words.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Your question is off topic, but I’ll review the point and the context for the question.

ROFL, with all respect, you bring up people being killed for their beliefs, and I show that Arian Emperiors did the same thing. You point to a list of forbidden books, and I point out that people are disfellowshipped by Jw’s for reading forbidden books, and now you call me off topic. Be real. I am only pointing out that what you accuse the catholic church of doing, the arians do the same things in the same era’s. So, yes my pointing out that people are disfellowshipped from the watchtower for reading forbidden books so to speak is very much on topic if your claims are “on topic”.

I have no problem with both groups having a list of forbidden books, I am only pointing out that what you accuse others of, your “church” does the same thing or that fellow arians did the same thing in reference to killing people for their faith.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

(Matthew 9:1-8) So, boarding the boat, he proceeded across and went into his own city. 2And, look! they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. On seeing their faith Jesus said to the paralytic: “Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven.” 3And, look! certain of the scribes said to themselves: “This fellow is blaspheming.” 4And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: “Why are YOU thinking wicked things in YOUR hearts? 5For instance, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? 6However, in order for YOU to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home.” 7And he got up and went off to his home. 8*At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.

Thank You, I knew I was overlooking it somewhere.

 

[BibleSteve]

Why are you still using this reference when I posted the person being referenced in this link as being totally opposed to the JW’s using his work as proof of of their theology, his clarification of his stance that is not in line with what JW say he is saying, and his own reports of his fellow professors disagreeing with his theories and conclusions on the matter? This is rather odd, Steve.

Because even a non-JW, who doesn’t agree with us on everything can look at this scripture at Col 1, and see that the NWT is fully justified in translating it as it does.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Personification does not prove personality. …

Somehow, you think it does in Proverbs 8. But, with the Holy Spirit we are going well beyond personification – the difference is the Holy Spirit is speaking in Acts 13:2 and He applies ego to himself. Just as I apply ego to myself in this very sentence.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Personality of the Holy Spirit

It would seem that the Scriptures do indicate the personality of the Holy Spirit for the following reasons.

1. In Acts 5:3-4 Peter first tells Ananias that he has “played false” to the Holy Spirit, and then that he has not played false to “men, but to God.” The implication without any previous understanding is that the Holy Spirit and Jehovah God are the same. It may also be asked how a force can be “played false,” lied to?

1. In Matthew 28:19 Christians are to baptize in the “name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

• Since the Father and Son are both persons it would seem that the Holy Spirit is also one, to be consistent.

• The Trinity booklet states that name does not always mean a personal name either in the Greek or English. However, no examples are given in the Greek.

• The Greek word for “name” (onoma) occurs 228 times in the NT. Except for four instances (where it refers to place names, Mark 14:32; Luke 1:26; 24:13; Acts 28:7) it always refers to persons.

• To read back into the Greek the English idiom “in the name of the law” is forcing a 20th Century interpretation upon a 1st Century culture. There is not one example of such usage in the NT.

• The Trinity booklet quotes A.T. Robinson as stating that the word “name” is used “for power or authority.” But it must be noted that this is the power and authority of someone, not some impersonal force. An impersonal force does not exercise authority.

• It is also very problematic that Jesus would be essentially saying in this verse that Christians were to baptize in the name of the eternal personal Jehovah God, the created angelic being Jesus, and the impersonal active force of God! A Trinitarian concept eliminates all these difficulties.

1. John 14-16 teaches a great deal about the Holy Spirit. The only point the Trinity booklet deals with is a grammatical one. It points out that the use of a masculine pronoun does not prove personality but is dictated by grammar since parakletos (helper, comforter) is a masculine noun. This is true in a strict sense. See John 14:17 in KIT where this grammatical rule is strictly applied but is violated in Colossians 1:27. Here in Colossians the feminine “glory” is translated as “[his]” glory, to agree with the masculine subject Christ.

• However in this section of John it would seem that the personality of the Holy Spirit is emphasized at the expense of correct grammatical rules in a number of passages. In John 14:16; 15:26; 16:8,13,14 the emphatic masculine pronoun, eikeinos (He), is used of the Holy Spirit, whereas the neuter noun pneuma (Spirit) is used in the same context or sentence. Proper Greek grammar demands that nouns and their accompanying pronouns must agree in gender. This is seemingly intentional to emphasize a point, that the Holy Spirit is a person.

• Jesus also refers to the Holy Spirit as “another (allos) helper” which clearly implies that there is a first “helper.” Jesus is called our “Helper” in 1 John 2:1. Since the first helper is a person it is consistent to think of the (an)other “Helper” as a person too.

• It is also instructive to note that the Holy Spirit is “allos,” another helper of the same kind. John could have written “heteros,” another helper of a different kind. While this does not prove the personhood of the Holy Spirit, to a reader of Greek the implication is clearly that the Holy Spirit is like Jesus, or the same. See Luke 6:6, “another Sabbath” where heteros is used meaning a different Sabbath, not the same.

• In John 14:26 Jesus states that the Holy Spirit will be sent in Jesus’ name. It is not the normal usage to speak of sending an impersonal force in somebody’s name. Then Jesus says that this impersonal force will teach them all things.

• Chapter sixteen of John contains Jesus’ most extensive teaching on the Holy Spirit. Here Jesus states that the Holy Spirit is sent, arrives, will convict the world of sin and impending judgement, guide into all truth, says whatever He hears from the Father and Jesus. It seems absurd to say that an impersonal force will say nothing on its own but only what it hears.

• The Holy Spirit is described as being self-effacing, humble, and only concerned for the glory of Christ. Is an impersonal force these things?

neirr.org/holyspiritperson.htm

 

[BibleSteve]

So, Jesus has the ablity to do exactly what God the Father has the ability to do. He works in concert with the Father. He sees the Father say forgive someone, and Jesus does the same himself. Whatever ablity the Father has, Jesus has that same ability.

Not exactly.

(Matthew 24:36) “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

 

[mikeledes]

This argument does not hold water. When God asserts that there is no savior than me, he is asserting that there is no one that does the saving work that he specificaly does. In other words, there are different kinds of salvation and thus different kinds of saviors. If you fall into the train tracks and I rescue you, I am your savior. But I am not your savior in the sense that God is your savior. When God says there is no savior like Him, He is talking about a specific kind of salvation that only He can provide.

Regarding creation, however, he is clearly asserting a clear fact, namely, that he was by Himself when He created the world and there was no one with Him. He even asserts that he created everything with His own hands, thus excluding any possibility of anyone doing the work for or with Him. He even asks in the NWT “WHO WAS WITH ME?”

The question I have is how do the JWs work out the logistics of creation. Did God provide Jesus the blueprint and Jesus did the actual work? How do you reconcile that with passages that clearly stated God created everything with His own hands. The expression “own hand” specifically excludes any representaives or the idea of anyone doing the work for Him. For example, let’s say, Steve, that you gave me a letter and told me to give it to Jaypeeto. Later on in the day, I tell you “I gave it to Jaypeeto.” Now that can be ambiguous. It can mean that I gave it to Jaypeeto personally or I sent someone to give it to him for me. But if I tell you, Steve, that “I gave it to Jaypeeto with my own hands”, that means I personally and directly gave him the letter and thus excludes any delegates, representatives, or messengers.

When God says that He created the world with His own hands, He is clearly stating that He personally and directly created the world by Himself, no delgates or representatives. Since we believe Jesus is God, these verses are not problematic. Since you see Jesus as a created partner in creation, you have a serious problem reconciling this with God’s express words.

God bless,
Michael

Oh good, not that you’re online Steve, I’m interested in a response to this post, which I wrote in response to your post.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Because even a non-JW, who doesn’t agree with us on everything can look at this scripture at Col 1, and see that the NWT is fully justified in translating it as it does.

And the text clearly states why Jesus is the firstborn of creation. He is the firstborn of creation “because” - and that’s the word found in the NWT - everything was created through Him and for Him. Thus he has preeminece over all creation. He is not firstborn because He was the first created.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BibleSteve]

mb-soft.com/believe/txn/apostle.htm

---

NASB: Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; (NASB ©1995)​

GWT: Brothers and sisters, you are holy partners in a heavenly calling. So look carefully at Jesus, the apostle and chief priest about whom we make our declaration of faith. (GOD’S WORD®)​

KJV: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;​

ASV: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even Jesus;​

BBE: For this reason, holy brothers, marked out to have a part in heaven, give thought to Jesus the representative and high priest of our faith;​

DBY: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus,​

WEY: Therefore, holy brethren, sharers with others in a heavenly invitation, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest whose followers we profess to be.​

WBS: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;​

WEB: Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus;​

YLT: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and chief priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,

Ah, exactly where are the disciples called “high priests”? yes, we all are part of a “royal priesthood”, but we are not called “high priest”, only Jesus is within the christian faith. Yes, there was an high priest in judaism, but only Jesus is the high priest in Christian theology, why is that?

The discussion was centered on the word apostle. Like the other 12 apostles, Jesus was sent forth with a message, representing the one who sent him, and had the authority to convey the message.

The disciples where called high priests. They were called part of a royal priesthood:

(1 Peter 2:9) But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Jesus was the one called “High Priest”. Like others who were called that in the OT, the “High Priest” wasn’t JEhovah, but served a role before him in behalf of the people…

 

[BibleSteve]

When Jesus quoted the opening words of Psalms 22, he was bringing to mind the full Psalm in the ears of those who heard him.

Psalms 22:24 plainly says, that God did not forsake him,

For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

Read the whole Psalm, and your interpretation fades away.

So, anyone else in the Bible says “my God” (like Thomas, and various OT Bible writers), and you’re sure they are identifying the recipient as Jehovah. But Jesus himself says it and now he, as Jehovah, is just quoting scripture…

Jesus referred to his Father, Jehovah many times by “my God”.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1. First, That he is a Person, and not a mere name and character, power or attribute of God; which will appear by observing,

1b. Personal actions are ascribed unto him; he is said to

1c. **Personal affections are ascribed to the Spirit; as love, grief, **

1. Secondly, The Holy Spirit is not only a Person, but a distinct Person from the Father and the Son; and

2d. The Holy Spirit is represented as doing some things distinct from the Father and the Son;

pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_1/book1_31.htm

follow the link for the meat of this argument. It is simply too long to post here.

carm.org/doctrine/holyspirit.htm

1. A treatment is predicated of the Holy Spirit that could be predicated only of a Person.

We read in Isaiah 63:10, “**Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.” **Here we are told that the Holy Spirit is rebelled against and grieved (cf. Ephesians 4:30). Only a person can be rebelled against and only a person of authority. Only a person can be grieved. You cannot grieve a mere influence or power. In Hebrews 10:29, we read, “How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” Here we are told that the Holy Spirit is “insulted.” There is but one kind of entity in the universe that can be insulted and that is a person. It is absurd to think of insulting an influence or a power or any kind of being except a person. We read again in Acts 5:3, “Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?’” Here we have the Holy Spirit represented as one who can be lied to. One cannot lie to anything but a person.

In Matthew 12:31, 32, we read, “And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Here we are told that the Holy Spirit is blasphemed against. It is impossible to blaspheme anything but a person. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, it certainly cannot be a more serious and decisive sin to blaspheme Him than it is to blaspheme the Son of man, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ Himself.

gotothebible.com/HTML/Sermons/TorreyPersonalityofHS.html

letusreason.org/Trin4.htm

1. Has a name: Matt. 28:19; note that even though “name” might be used of a nonperson, here, in conjunction with the Father and the Son, it must be used of a person
2. Is the “Helper”

a. Is another Helper: John 14:16, cf. 1 John 2:1; note also that “Helper” (paraklêtos) was used in Greek always or almost always of persons.

b. Is sent in Jesus’ name, to teach: John 14:26.

c. Will arrive, and then bear witness: John 15:26-27.

d. Is sent by Christ to convict of sin, will speak not on his own but on behalf of Christ, will glorify Christ, thus exhibiting humility: John 16:7-14.

1. Is the Holy Spirit, in contrast to unholy spirits: Mark 3:22-30, cf. Matt. 12:32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 3:24-4:6.
2. Speaks, is quoted as speaking: John 16:13; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 16:6; 20:23; 21:11: 28:25-27; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13,22.
3. Can be lied to: Acts 5:3
4. Can make decisions, judgments: Acts 15:28
5. Intercedes for Christians with the Father: Rom. 8:26
6. “Impersonal” language used of the Spirit paralled by language used of other persons

a. The Holy Spirit as fire: Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Ex. 3:2-4; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; Heb. 12:29

b. The Holy Spirit poured out: Acts 2:17, 33; cf. Isa. 53:12; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6

c. Being filled with the Holy Spirit: Eph. 5:18, etc.; cf. Eph. 3:17, 19; 14:10

spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm

Have you even bothered to read this outline on the trinity?