Not even Russell should be considered a Jehovah’s Witness in the technical manner/sense because the religion name was not used yet.
Exodus 34:14 “You must not bow down to another god, for Jehovah is known for requiring exclusive devotion. Yes, he is a God who requires exclusive devotion.”
Im not trying to be technical, im trying to ask a real question with proper terms you and i would use in real conversation.adf417:
Not even Russell should be considered a Jehovah’s Witness in the technical manner/sense because the religion name was not used yet.
In a looser sense, we don’t admit of there being No JWs before Russell, instead WE DON’T KNOW.
And the distinction is to differentiate Jesus’ sonship from ours.
Unity in the family of God, yes. As I said above, we are all God’s children by ADOPTION, Jesus is truly God’s son, not by adoption or creation! That is why Jesus never says OUR Father. He (The Father) is OUR Father, but Jesus always makes the difference clear.
Once again you are cherry picking verses and not reading them within their context or even within the entire chapter for that matter. Paul is distinguishing the Christian faith from that of paganism with their many “gods”. The rest of that verse says
Your
quote tells me you have a very different understanding of what it means to share in one’s nature. Your misunderstanding either stems from what the Society teaches or your own personal beliefs, in either case you keep implying disparity where none exists. If Jehovah is Almighty God and Jesus has that same exact nature, then Jesus is also Almighty God. If a woman gives birth to a child, that child by its very nature is going to be human, not some lesser form of humanity.
Once again when you read the entire chapter it puts it into better context. The Oneness He is speaking of is applied to their unity and understanding of what is to come. The time of Jesus’ death draws near, once the shepherd is struck down, the sheep will scatter. Jesus is praying for them to remain united in their faith and understanding of what they must endure, so that the world will recognize the Glory of Christ and at the end of it all they will be where He is in heaven.
Yes miracles, by themselves are not a claim of divinity, I agree. In the case of Jesus however, the miracles were done in conjunction with what He was claiming, mainly out of a necessity for the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. Also, Moses was made LIKE God, Jesus is not LIKE God, He IS God. Neither made nor created. That’s the whole point!
His authority was in direct fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14. The Son of Man (Jesus) appears during this time as was foretold. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “limited”, but this also ties back into the euphemism of coming in the clouds. So this absolutely alludes to Jesus being God.
Please provide the ones you make mention.
If your statement was purposely made falsely, it is the sick lie.
Italics mine ^
Matthew 6:9.
If he was trying to teach the people to pray but they had not been adopted and yet he taught those how to pray by saying Our Father, certainly even those not adopted can call God Our Father as you unintentionally claim about the sermon on the Mount.
Jesus the Christ himself said “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? (John 10:34)
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (KJV).
Not that he has the same Exact nature, reason for which he only reflects as an “image” (Col. 1:15)
Sharing in God’s nature does not make equivalence. God is a spirit, Jesus was created in the heaven as a spirit. Jesus is called only-begotten son, he is a unique Son created directly.
And that’s where truly comprehending what the Holy Spirit is would actually help you understand HOW it could be.
Sick lie? This sounds pretty harsh as if you are upset with me for clearly stating a fact. You call it a sick lie, then proceed to write nonsense that never shows that what I said was incorrect, that the JWs add the word Jehovah to the New Testament. You just take comfort in other people wrongly doing the same thing in the 1860s and later. And Hallelujah is not a name, so what I said still is true, I clearly said that I was talking about the places where JWs added the name Jehovah. You can have your scholarly proper excuse, but Catholics and Orthodox don’t buy it as you wouldn’t either if it wasn’t your religion doing the addition.
You misunderstood unintentionally. After reading the context personally, it means it is the most known English pronounciation; it has a long history in the English language.
Logically out of context when read directly (no need for interpretation):
“Jehovah” was the most used/known name and was simply the adaptation (possibly by the monk) of the transliterated Hebrew name יהוה Yod Heh Vav Heh, into the hybridization of “Jehovah”, not the “fabrication”, but the adaptation.
Even then, everyone knows it is the corresponding transliteration for יהוה, so in no way can it mislead.
Do you have the original New Testament to verify that?
Who did the substitution of יהוה into LORD in the Hebrew scriptures? With what clear authority?
The Catholics replaced/substituted יהוה for the ‘LORD’ in the Hebrew scriptures.
Correcting your personal misunderstanding of someone else’s reply does not make your statement true.
I have not resorted to calling you a sick liar (there would have been no explanation if it were so), I explained how it could be so that you falsely said:
I do not imply “Christians” think Jesus is the Father. I know supposed Christians think Jesus is also the Father; in the specific case of Catholics, God is in the mode of Jesus, or the Father as he desires. It is known to originate from the pagans of the time as for example dualism. That would be why the philosophical idea is being accepted by all of you, because repeating the belief doesn’t make it right, but you will think it is.
The quotation by Jesus in this verse is in a negative sense from Psalm 82:6, which ironically is a Psalm about the judgement of wicked rulers. He is contrasting their being called ‘gods’ in a sense because they are charged with carrying out judgements, however they are now trying to say that Jesus is blaspheming because He is referring to Himself as the Son Of God. The absurdity of their claim is what is being questioned, because as the TRUE Son of God, He has more right to the claim than they do and yet they are accusing Him of blasphemy.
Firstborn, as it used here is to show pre-eminence and honor that is rightfully His. It is through His incarnation that He became the IMAGE of the Invisible God. So his human nature is what is spoken of here. He is the firstborn in the primordial sense, not temporal. Just like in Gen 1:26, man was made in God’s image. This image was then tainted by sin and Jesus chose to take on this sinful nature/flesh and then restore it to its proper glory, which was done at His resurrection.
Again I would disagree with your interpretation of these verses. Jesus was not a created being and the verses you chose to bolster your argument do not suggest that. Rev 3:14 does not mean that Jesus was the FIRST created being by Jehovah. It is referring to Jesus as being the source of all creation or the cause of all creation. He is the Alpha and Omega, just like it says in Rev 1:8, the same expression is also used for Jehovah in Rev 21:6. Two distinct and separate persons, yet ONE BEING.
Sooooo not the point! The point is the method in which the vowels were added and how this decision came about. The publication is clear on the obscurity of the divine name but doesn’t hesitate to how added these vowels somehow makes the divine name Divine.
Correction. Everyone knows it is the “best known” transliteration which is why it is mind boggling to put so much weight on a name of such origin to profess that those that don’t use it must be non believers.