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

[Claude_Kenneson]

Firstborn of the dead does not mean that Christ was the first one to die or the first one dead anymore than firstborn of creation means he was the first one created. Why can it not mean that he was the origin of the resurrection? Did he not call himself the Resurrection and the Life?

 

[yessisan]

People, watch out with BibleSteve! He cannot be trusted. He is violating forum rules. Just take a look for yourselves. Click here

I already told the Mods.

 

[Bishopite]

Therein lies the problem. Although there have been millions of people who view themselves as Christian, believe in Jesus, and adore him as the Son of God, and rest their faith on him for salvation, the CC has created a definition that orthodox means Jesus is God.

So, to find someone who simultaneously meets the CC’s definition of “orthodox”, while believing something different than the CC’s definition is (by definition) impossible.

First of all, you don’t actually adore Jesus truly as the “Son of God” for it has been shown in earlier posts, to say in the genre of Jesus’ time, that one is the “Son of God” is to say with all certainty that you are of the same nature of God Himself; this is also evident within scripture itself (John 8:58, 10:31).

Rational thinking concludes that if Christianity has always taught Jesus as being divine all from the begining (as history shows) and coupled with scripture, which gives us direct evidence of this reality, then it is conclusive that the true version of who Jesus really is that He IS divine. The scriptures affirm what has always been the sacred Tradition (paradosis) of Christianity. It may sound arogant to you, but the truth is the truth.

And Steve blaiming your lack of evidence to support your JW doctrine in the early church on the Catholic church is your only hope, I’m afraid.
Websters defines orthodox as “conforming to established doctrine especially in religion.”
Since you don’t find your teachings in the early church, you as I said earlier, create an escapism and blame the Catholic church say it was a bully or used violence; you said this when you mentioned that you were “concerned” about Athanasius’ apparent violent behavior. JW’s aren’t free from violence either, you know. In charity Steve I didn’t bring up the multitude proven evidence there is against Jehovah’s Witnesses who have done some terrible crimes. And I’m not going to do this, because it is really a shame that you even brought up.

Ironic how you blame the Catholic church as creating certain beliefs like the Trinity, yet as I said before, the Trinitatrians e.g., Athanasius was in the minority. Yet WHO did Jehovah God allow to prevail?? He allowed His truth to prevail as He said it would in Mt 16:18-19. It’s called reality. And it matters NOT if millions of people view themselves as Christians." Calling oneself Christian doesn’t suffice. Believing Jesus as divine equal to God as Christianity has taught since its inception does; that has always been the orthodox (established doctrine) of Christianity.

 

[b_justb]

Read post 1 in this thread. The claim is that Jesus is Jehovah.

No it is not. Post one in this thread deals with Jesus’ divinity, not that the Son is the Father.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

But remember, Jehovah or Yahweh is the name of
the entire Deity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), not of the Father only.
The name literally means I AM WHO AM,
which is basically nothing more than saying
" I am timeless " or " I am eternal."
That’s what it means.
That’s why some French bibles translate YHWH as the Eternal instead of Yahweh or Jehovah. Eternal is actually as accurate as Yahweh or Jehovah.

Jesus declared himself YHWH when he said to the
Jews, “Before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” (Ego Eimi).
Just a few sentences before, the Jews had contrasted Abraham with God almighty. Jesus took up their theme when they told him that he wasn’t even 50 years old and therefore Abraham could never have seen him, and Jesus replied, Amen, Amen, I say unto thee, Before Abraham came into existence, I AM (Ego Eimi).
This does NOT MEAN “I have been” as the NWT translates it,
it is an extremely emphatic way of saying I AM.
It’s like saying I, I, I AM, drawing profound attention to his own timelessness. The Jews understood immediately what he meant and they took up stones to stone him for blasphemy for saying it.
Only God is timeless. For a man to say what Jesus said, in the context in which he said it, was blasphemous (if it wasn’t true).
To the Jews, Jesus looked like just a regular guy in his 30s.
If he had said, I have been, they would have thought he was
bonkers, but they wouldn’t have stoned him, because there was no law in the Torah about claiming merely to be extremely old.

God bless all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Also the word being used in 1 John

That is all true, but I think we should look at the context of I John 4, I think John is speaking in generalities, not aboslute universal language — that is saying “in general today, no one has ever seen God”. Look at verse 20, I think it is key to our understanding. The context of the full passage is loving others. I think John is saying, generally people do not see God ( verse 12 ), then in verse 20, he goes on to basically say, you cannot love God whom you cannot see, if you do not love humans that you can see.

1 John 4:7-21 (Young’s Literal Translation)

7Beloved, may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God;

8he who is not loving did not know God, because God is love.

9In this was manifested the love of God in us, because His Son – the only begotten – hath God sent to the world, that we may live through him;

10in this is the love, not that we loved God, but that He did love us, and did send His Son a propitiation for our sins.

11Beloved, if thus did God love us, we also ought one another to love;

12God no one hath ever seen; if we may love one another, God in us doth remain, and His love is having been perfected in us;

13in this we know that in Him we do remain, and** He in us, because of His Spirit He hath given us. **

14And we – **we have seen **and do testify, that the Father hath sent the Son – Saviour of the world;

15whoever may confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God in him doth remain, and he in God;

16and we – we have known and believed the love, that God hath in us; God is love, and he who is remaining in the love, in God he doth remain, and God in him.

17In this made perfect hath been the love with us, that boldness we may have in the day of the judgment, because even as He is, we – we also are in this world;

18fear is not in the love, but the perfect love doth cast out the fear, because the fear hath punishment, and he who is fearing hath not been made perfect in the love;

19we – we love him, because He – He first loved us;

** 20if any one may say – `I love God,’ and his brother he may hate, a liar he is; for he who is not loving his brother whom he hath seen, God – whom he hath not seen – how is he able to love?**

21and this [is] the command we have from Him, that he who is loving God, may also love his brother.

John starts this letter with,

1 John 1

That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we did behold, and our hands did handle, concerning the Word of the Life –

This runs back to John’s gospel, where Jesus revealed the divine nature of the Father to the apostles, he can only do this because he himself shared or had the same divine nature himself.

continued…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

This runs back to John’s gospel, where Jesus revealed the divine nature of the Father to the apostles, he can only do this because he himself shared or had the same divine nature himself.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God,** but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.**

John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

John 8:38
I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father. "

John 14:7
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

John 14:9
Jesus answered: "Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” cannot be said of angels because God charges his angels with error, they are imperfect.

Job 4:18
If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error,

Basically, Jesus has revealed the Father two ways,

Colossians 2:9 (Young’s Literal Translation)

because **in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, **

Being fully God, divine – all the completeness, fulness, abundance of the Godhead is in the person of Jesus Christ.

If one has seen the character of Christ they have seen the very character of God the Father.

And, secondly, God the Son, lived with God the Father, and has all the attributes of deity. So, by their common actions ( John 5:18-19 ) God the Father is made known to them.

Basically, no one has seen God the Father in his fulness, face to face, in his pure form. Those in the OT who experienced theophanies, were not experiencing God the Father, but were in fact experiencing the Son of God, thus Jesus can say in John 8:58 before Abraham came into being, I AM going back to Exodus 3:14 where Moses experienced God in the burning bush.

John 6:46 is not a problem for us at all.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

“Firstborn” doesn’t always mean chronologically or the first one born. Sometimes it means first in importance, and not first in time. Manasseh was the first one born, but Jacob (Israel) blessed Ephraim instead of Manasseh and gave him the position of firstborn (Gen. 48:13-22). in Jer. 31:9, God declares Ephraim to be His firstborn, even though Manasseh was born first. The same is true with Jacob and Esau. Esau was the first one born, but Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel) received his brother’s birthright and his father’s blessing and became the firstborn. The nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel his firstborn (Ex. 4:22). Here again, firstborn refers to rank and privileges. The nation of Israel was not the first nation to exist. But God called it the firstborn among all the nations. The Levites substituted the Israelites birstborn. Numbers 8:13-16. To the firstborn belonged the birthright, which included the headship of the family or tribe, and a double portion of his father’s property. Jesus is the firstborn because he is the highest. He is first in importance, in pre-eminence, not first in time because pre-existed before time. The context of Col. 1:16-17 is a denial that Christ is the same in dignity, character, and origin as created beings. He is supreme over all things, including angels (thrones or powers or rulers or authorities). He is before all things (referring to time, as in Jn. 1:1-2; 8:58). Christ is prior, pre-eminent and sovereign over all creation. He stands apart and outside creation and is not a part of creation.

What does firstborn of death in Job 18:13 mean?

What does firstborn of the poor in Isa. 14:30 mean?

What does firstborn among many brothers in Rom. 8:29 mean?

What does the congregation of the firstborn in Heb. 12:23 mean?

Well Said, this is exactly, the primary meaning taught in Hebrew School at synagoguge.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

First of all, you don’t actually adore Jesus truly as the “Son of God” for it has been shown in earlier posts, to say in the genre of Jesus’ time, that one is the “Son of God” is to say with all certainty that you are of the same nature of God Himself; this is also evident within scripture itself (John 8:58, 10:31).

Rational thinking concludes that if Christianity has always taught Jesus as being divine all from the begining (as history shows) and coupled with scripture, which gives us direct evidence of this reality, then it is conclusive that the true version of who Jesus really is that He IS divine. The scriptures affirm what has always been the sacred Tradition (paradosis) of Christianity. It may sound arogant to you, but the truth is the truth.

And Steve blaiming your lack of evidence to support your JW doctrine in the early church on the Catholic church is your only hope, I’m afraid.
Websters defines orthodox as “conforming to established doctrine especially in religion.”
Since you don’t find your teachings in the early church, you as I said earlier, create an escapism and blame the Catholic church say it was a bully or used violence; you said this when you mentioned that you were “concerned” about Athanasius’ apparent violent behavior. **JW’s aren’t free from violence either, you know. In charity Steve I didn’t bring up the multitude proven evidence there is against Jehovah’s Witnesses who have done some terrible crimes. And I’m not going to do this, because it is really a shame that you even brought up. **

Ironic how you blame the Catholic church as creating certain beliefs like the Trinity, yet as I said before, the Trinitatrians e.g., Athanasius was in the minority. Yet WHO did Jehovah God allow to prevail?? He allowed His truth to prevail as He said it would in Mt 16:18-19. It’s called reality. And it matters NOT if millions of people view themselves as Christians." Calling oneself Christian doesn’t suffice. Believing Jesus as divine equal to God as Christianity has taught since its inception does; that has always been the orthodox (established doctrine) of Christianity.

Please PM me links about this bold part since it is something I am unaware of.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What Does the Bible Mean by Temptation? by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.

God cannot be tempted (James 1:13).

God can be tempted (or there would be no reason for us to be warned against tempting God – Deuteronomy 6:16).

If God cannot be tempted (see 1 above), and Jesus is God, then does that mean he cannot be tempted? (James 1:13)

But Jesus was tempted (Hebrews 4:15).

God tempts no one (James 1:13).

God tempted someone (David, to number Israel – 2 Samuel 24:1).

How are these biblical statements reconciled, both within scripture and consistent with God’s character?

The answers to these statements can be categorized in two major ways: vocabulary (what words were used in the original, and what meanings those words have), and context (how the words were used in each passage).

Vocabulary

Temptation has many synonyms (equivalent words) in English. It can mean (among other things) test, proof, experiment, trial, and enticement. The main Greek (New Testament language) words for temptation are formed from peiraz and dokimaz , both words of which also occur in the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The main Hebrew words are n sƒh, s rap, and b han, and one word which relates primarily to the genuineness of coins, sig. Comparing the Septuagint equivalents to the original Hebrew helps us understand the overall biblical use of the terms.

[Those who wish more information on the Greek or Hebrew should see The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol. 3), Colin Brown, ed., Zondervan, 1978, pp. 798-810; or The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Lawrence O. Richards, Zondervan, 1985, pp. 593-594.]

Both peiraz and dokimaz can mean test or proof. In addition, peiraz includes the ideas of temptation or enticement (to sin) and of a trial. Dokimaz also carries the connotation of approval or genuineness.

From this vocabulary study, we see that “temptation” can mean test, proof, or to establish genuineness; not only “enticement to sin.”

answers.org/theology/is_god_tempted.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Context

Armed with our vocabulary study, we can look at the context of each of our six statements.

God Cannot Be Tempted

James 1:13 says, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” Looking at the context, we see that the statement is not merely “God cannot be tempted,” but “God cannot be tempted by evil.” In other words, God cannot be enticed to sin (Greek apeir st s). James 1:13 affirms that God cannot sin, but is completely holy and good.

God Can Be Tempted

When Deuteronomy 6:16 warns us against “tempting God,” the context refers on the one hand to testing the Israelites’ faithfulness and, on the other hand, to testing God’s righteous judgment. Paraphrased, the passage means, “Don’t test God’s righteous judgment by worship-ping idols unless you are willing to be wiped off the face of the earth” (v. 15).
The reconciliation of the two statements? God cannot be enticed to sin; he is holy and good. God’s consistent, holy, good reaction to idolatry is righteous judgment. One should not “test” God’s character by sinning, since God will “pass the test” of righteousness and punish the sinner (see also Jeremiah 18:7-10).

Can Jesus Be God and Be Tempted?

Jesus is God and so he cannot be tempted in the sense that he cannot be enticed to sin, but he can be tempted in the sense that he can be tested, even with the evil lures of Satan (Matthew 4), and found to be true to his character. This is the context of Hebrews 4:15, which says, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted (peiraz ) in all things as we are, yet without sin.”
Jesus was tested by Satan’s enticements concerning his obedience to the Father and his commitment to his messianic mission, yet he did not succumb to the temptation. (A related issue concerns the dynamics between Christ’s human and divine natures, under the subjection of his one divine person. See The Impeccable Christ by W. E. Best, Zondervan, 1971).

Does God Tempt People?

Look again at James 1:13. Just as God cannot be enticed into sinning, so God does not entice anyone else into sinning. That is what is meant by “and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” James warns us not to blame our own fall into sin on God. God does not persuade us to sin, we willingly fall to the lure of our own sinful nature (Romans 3:23), the sinfulness in the world (Titus 2:12), and/or the false promises of Satan (Genesis 3:1-5).
When 2 Samuel 24:1 says God provoked or tempted David to number Israel, it means God made use of David’s action to manifest David’s disobedience to God. The parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 credits Satan with provoking David to take the census. Putting the two passages together shows that, while Satan may have enticed David into sin, it was God who tested David and used that occasion to show both David and the Israelites the consequences of David’s sin.

God tests us to reveal to ourselves and the world our true characters.

God has always tested each order of rational beings that He has created. This test has consisted of proof of perfect trust and obedience. A test in itself is not a cause of sin. Only the action of the one tested can turn it into an occasion to sin. . . . Adam and Eve faced a test of obedience, and disobeyed and fell. Christ, in order to redeem men, faced testing, and came out victorious (Hebrews 5:7-9) (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Charles Pfeiffer, Howard Vos, and John Rea, eds., Moody, 1975, p. 1680).

Summary

There are various meanings for the word temptation. Usually it means either an enticement to sin or a test or trial. God never entices anyone to sin, but uses testing to reveal his justice and challenge believers to faithfulness (2 Corinthians 13:5-8).

answers.org/theology/is_god_tempted.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?
By Bob Passantino

On the cross Jesus said, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46). Many Christians believe this signifies the one and only time that there was a split between the first two persons of the Trinity, that is, between the Father and the Son. The argument asserts that when Jesus “became sin,” the Father was unable to look upon him, hence he “forsook” Jesus. This argument seeks to emphasize the great cost to Christ on our behalf. He was even willing to endure separation from the Father to accomplish our salvation. However, I believe such an interpretation, while well intentioned, has heretical implications.[1] It is a denial of belief in one eternal, indivisible God.

First, if the Father cannot look upon sin, meaning that he had to turn away from the Son on the cross (and I have found no verse which says that), then what does that say about the character and deity of Jesus? Is Jesus somehow less than God, so that he can “look upon” the sin that was laid on him on the cross? Or does he simply have a stronger stomach for sin than the Father? Or perhaps Jesus is more merciful than the Father, able to suffer what the Father cannot even face? It is interesting that in Genesis 6:5, God looked upon the sin of mankind. When scripture says that God cannot “look” upon sin, contextually it means he cannot look with approval upon sin. His consistent reaction to sin is just judgment - against the unrepentant sinner, or through the atonement of Jesus Christ, the one who died in our place and on our behalf.

Second, Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22 when he stated “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” The Psalm is referred to previously in the same passage. The common Jewish way of designating an entire psalm was to refer to the opening lines, since the psalms were not numbered at that time. Jesus did not believe God had forsaken him: this would be lack of faith, which is sin (Romans 14:23), and Jesus never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). He was himself God and always in perfect obedience to the Father. Instead, he referred to the psalm in its entirety as a messianic psalm. That he knew God had not actually forsaken him is clear from the same psalm, which says, “He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard” (verse 24). In fact, Jesus was declaring to his accusers that they were in the midst of fulfilling this psalm, which was commonly understood in His day to refer to the coming Messiah, the Suffering Servant. The psalmist himself understood that the “forsaking” of God was not abandonment, but a lifting of His Sovereign protection according to His divine plan so that the threats of his enemies could be carried out in fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, there were many times during Jesus’ public ministry when His enemies sought to kill him (John 5:16; 8:59, for examples). They were not able to because, as He said, His “hour” was not yet come (John 12:23-28). He declared to Pilate, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin” (John 19:11). On the day of Pentecost Peter declared that no one could have crucified Christ in defiance of God’s power: “Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it” (Acts 2:23-24).

Third, when 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that God made Jesus “to be sin,” it means that God made the penalty for all sin to fall upon Jesus, not that Jesus himself could become sin, e.g., sinful. As perfect God and perfect man, he could not sin. 1 Peter 1:19 calls Jesus “a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

Fourth, is it reasonable to assume that the Father would desert the Son who was acting in obedience to him through every moment of existence, “obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8)? Is it consistent with the character of God for the Father to reward Christ’s obedience with rejection? On the contrary, Ephesians 5:2 says Christ’s sacrifice was “an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.”

answers.org/theology/forsaken.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Fifth, it is actually or ontologically impossible for there to be a “split” between any persons of the eternal Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, simply defined, is that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal, distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the One God. (We do not believe in a rationally contradictory God of one God in three gods or one Person in three Persons, but one God in three Persons.) While others exist in generic or species identity (such as three humans sharing in humanness), God exists in numeric identity, such that each person is the one God. If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any “split” in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God.

In conclusion, it is fallible humans who think the Father would reject the Son on the cross. The bond between the Father and the Son is inseparable, not only because of their deity, but because of the complete agreement between their wills, desires, mercy, justice, and love for mankind, exemplified in Christ’s great sacrifice on the cross. Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, records the erroneous reaction of men to Christ’s humiliating death: “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” Christ’s declaration on the cross, far from being a admission of separation or abandonment, is a powerful affirmation of God’s essential unity, perfect justice, sovereign power, and matchless grace.

For further information on this problem, I recommend James Oliver Buswell’s Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, Vol. Two, pp. 66-69).

1. This view and my view are not the only possible interpretations of this passage, and there are interpretations other than mine that do not have implicatory problems. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to address those alternate interpretations.

answers.org/theology/forsaken.html

 

[MHalsey]

But remember, Jehovah or Yahweh is the name of
the entire Deity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), not of the Father only.
The name literally means I AM WHO AM,
which is basically nothing more than saying
" I am timeless " or " I am eternal."
That’s what it means.
That’s why some French bibles translate YHWH as the Eternal instead of Yahweh or Jehovah. Eternal is actually as accurate as Yahweh or Jehovah.

Jay, you beat me to it. After spending this morning getting caught up on this thread, I am amazed at how much Steve just passes on. I’m sure he’ll pass on this as well.

I think this is why the JW version puts Jehovah into every place where the word God is used, that way they can arguer that Jesus cannot be Jehovah, nor can the Holy Spirit. As someone else pointed out:

This is not trinity, 1+1+1=1 or Father+Son+Holy Spirit=Jehovah
This is, 111=1 or FatherSonHoly Spirit=Jehovah

Please note, I am not implying that God is a mathematical equation, but it helps to get the idea of what we’re talking about.

 

[MHalsey]

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.

Ah, title matching. Isn’t this what you argued against at the beginning of this thread. I’m sorry Steve, but if you won’t let others use this approach, in all fairness, neither can you.

 

[mikeledes]

To me, this verse serves the death blow to the JW creation account:

Isaiah 44:24 (NWT)

24 This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me**?**

How would a Catholic answer that last question? No one Lord.

How would a JW answer that last question? Well, even though you just said you did it by yourself, I still insist that you had some help. It’s not that you’re lying Lord Jehovah, it’s just that you are not saying the whole truth. Oh sorry… that just didn’t come out right. Hey maybe you forgot. Oh wait… silly me … you’re God. I don’t know. All I know is that what you’re saying is not what you’re really saying.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Bishopite]

Please PM me links about this bold part since it is something I am unaware of.

No thanks. I don’t really care to get involved in smear tactics; they are ad hominem arguments. The only reason I brought it up is that it is a non-arguement as to who has the true authority to interpret and proclaim Gods word. As I said before, Steve brought up Athanasius as an argument that the Catholic church used violence to get its way which according to him somehow invalidates Catholicism as THE church Christ established, yet even secular historians affirm its inception from Jesus Christ.

 

[Bishopite]

To answer your question, I am not teaching Pelagianism, BibleSteve was. newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
Frankly, I am following the lead of C.H. Dodd, that a quote from part of a chapter in biblical times is essentially quoting the full chapter back then.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=C.+H.+Dodd+quoting+part+of+a+chapter

Psalms 22:24 is plainly saying that God did not abandened Jesus on the cross.

Not a problem. It seemed that you were arguing from a JW position and I think we are saying the same thing, I hope.
Yes pelagianism is a problem. I didn’t catch BibleSteve’s view of justification so I can’t comment on whether he teaches pelagianism. I do know that he teaches arianism for that’s the JW position on who Jesus is to them.
And I agree that God the Father didn’t abandon Jesus on the cross, and said that 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; that doesn’t mean Jesus is merely a man for as we know He is God-man having the hypostatic union. 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), so Jesus is crying out in His humanity even though He is both God incarnate.

 

[Bishopite]

[Daniel Marsh;2340541]Fifth, it is actually or ontologically impossible for there to be a “split” between any persons of the eternal Trinity.

Agreed. In Catholic theology this is called circuminsession.

The doctrine of the Trinity, simply defined, is that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal, distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the One God. (We do not believe in a rationally contradictory God of one God in three gods or one Person in three Persons, but one God in three Persons.) While others exist in generic or species identity (such as three humans sharing in humanness), God exists in numeric identity, such that each person is the one God. If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any “split” in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God.

Exactly. Also, Jesus can’t be split in His personhood. He is both 100% God and 100% man.

In conclusion, it is fallible humans who think the Father would reject the Son on the cross. The bond between the Father and the Son is inseparable, not only because of their deity, but because of the complete agreement between their wills, desires, mercy, justice, and love for mankind, exemplified in Christ’s great sacrifice on the cross. Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, records the erroneous reaction of men to Christ’s humiliating death: “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” Christ’s declaration on the cross, far from being a admission of separation or abandonment, is a powerful affirmation of God’s essential unity, perfect justice, sovereign power, and matchless grace.

For further information on this problem, I recommend James Oliver Buswell’s Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, Vol. Two, pp. 66-69).

1. This view and my view are not the only possible interpretations of this passage, and there are interpretations other than mine that do not have implicatory problems. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to address those alternate interpretations.

answers.org/theology/forsaken.html

The Trinity is real and also a mystery indeed.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I still have not seen a response to what I consider one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God the Son, it was mentioned a few pages back: John 12:41 quoting Isaiah 6:1-10. Isaiah saw “his glory” with the word ‘his’ in reference to Jesus.