What do the Jehovahs Witnesses believe in?

[mwok]

John 2:19-21
Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”

The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, 16 and you will raise it up in three days?”

But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken.

Notice, Christ said “I”, so the verse you quoted actually supports that Jesus and God raised Christ from the dead. Thanx!

 

[CoRedeemer]

At Acts 3:15 Peter said: “God raised him (Jesus) up from the dead.”

(No mention of Jesus doing it on his own authority.)
What scripture were you quoting?

Hey Regardless,

I just have a few questions for you if you don’t mind me asking. Turn to Revelation 22:12-13and if you could please tell me: Who is the “Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End” in that verse Revelation:22:12-13?

Also I am interested to know Revelation 1:7-8 where it says, "7Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him. Yes, Amen. 8 “I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

My question is: How is Jevovah, God coming? Verse 8 says that Jehovah God was and is coming, the Amighty? How will Jehovah God come when he has no Body and has entrusted everything to his Son?

But now if you read only verse 7, “Look! He is COMING with the clouds, and every eye WILL SEE HIM, and those who PIERCED HIM; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him. Yes, Amen.”

Does this mean that we will see Jehovah God as Jesus Christ, because he is COMING ON THE CLOUDS? Verse 8 says that Jehovah God is coming?

Thanks!

 

[T_More]

I Haven’t found it yet, but look what I did find: (I have done the underlining)

Quote…
*Translating John 1:1: The Coptic Evidence
(Solomon Landers, September 2006)

It is becoming well-known that the primary Coptic translations of John 1:1c – the
Sahidic, the proto-Bohairic, and the Bohairic – do not render it “the Word was
God,” as is common in many English versions, but “the Word was a god,”* found
notably in the New World Translation.
The significance of this is remarkable. First, the Coptic versions precede the New
World Translation by some 1,700 years, and are part of the corpus of ancient textual
witnesses to the Gospel of John. Second, the Coptic versions were produced at a
time when the Koine Greek of the Christian Greek Scriptures was still a living
language whose finer nuances could be understood by the Coptic translators, so
much so that many Greek words are left untranslated in the Coptic texts. Third,
the Coptic versions do not show the influence of later interpretations of Christology
fostered by the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries CE.
End of quote…

Interesting?

From Tim Staples on this very website:

Jehovah’s Witnesses respond by claiming the Greek text actually says “. . . the Word was a god.” They maintain Jesus is here revealed to be a god, not the God because the definite article (Gk. Ho, the) is not used before god (Gk. theos), when referring to Jesus. This line of reasoning has three main problems:

1.The predicate nominative in Greek normally does not take the definite article. In this verse, then, the lack of the definite article is grammatically consistent. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we see another example of this convention in John 8:54, where the predicate nominative is “Father”—again without the definite article preceding (3:105).
2.The JW’s are inconsistent. They translate the word theos as “Jehovah,” or the God numerous times in their New World Translation of the Bible when it does not have the article preceding it (see NWT: Matt. 5:9, 6:24; Luke 1:35, 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; Rom. 1:7,17,18; and Titus 1:1, just to name a few).
3.Jesus is referred to as theos with the definite article multiple times elsewhere in Scripture. For example: “But of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God (ho theos, the definite article plus theos), is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom’” (Heb. 1:8). Jesus is not a god here. He is the God: "Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ " (Titus 2:13, emphasis added—definite article appears in apposition to “great God”). Not only do we see the definite article before theos, but we see the article plus the adjective great. Jesus is not only the God, he is the great God and our Savior. The Bible is very clear that only Yahweh is both the great God and our Savior. (See Isaiah 41:4, 43:3,11, 44:6,8, 45:21; Hos. 13:4; and Luke 1:47.) Consider too: Thomas answered, and said to [Jesus]: “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). The Greek text reads “the Lord of me and the God of me.” The definite article before Lord and God leaves no doubt that Thomas—directly addressing our Lord—calls Jesus both the Lord and the God.

 

[T_More]

No, the point is, Jesus was standing beside God. They are different people.
And “at his right hand” is a supporting role. Not even equal.

And if you believe the Trinity, you will need an excuse why the co-equal, co-everything Holy Ghost wasn’t seen in the heavenly vision. Probably because this was before a Catholic Council in 381 AD.

By your statment, you fulfill what Christ was speaking about in John 14:16-

16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

How is this not a person, Regardless? About whom is Jesus speaking about in the above verse? How about this one, from your own translation in Acts 13:3-

2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which **I **have called them.”

Who is acting here?

 

[T_More]

No, the point is, Jesus was standing beside God. They are different people.
And “at his right hand” is a supporting role. Not even equal.

And if you believe the Trinity, you will need an excuse why the co-equal, co-everything Holy Ghost wasn’t seen in the heavenly vision. Probably because this was before a Catholic Council in 381 AD.

I’d love for you to show the teaching of paradise earth in scripture. Where might that term, “paradise earth”, be found?

 

[T_More]

Thanks for your post.
.

I’m not especially interested what the early Church fathers taught

Well, you may not be, but certainly the governing body is, your teaching authority. The following are a collection of verses taken from the Watchtower (prof texted by them to try and support that the fathers were Trinitarian):

*Jesus himself said: “Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy.

Various Trinitarian concepts exist. But generally the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; yet, together they are but one God. The doctrine says that the three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead.

If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that he was never equal to God as part of a Godhead. But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone his equal. If the Trinity is false, it dishonors God to say, “We worship one God in Trinity.”

The ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator…willed him to do and say.”

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.”

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence “a creature” but called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not….Before all things, God was alone.” (The word “tri’as” appears in its Latin form of “trinitas” in Tertullian. While these words do translate to “Trinity,” this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the doctrine of the Trinity.)

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him….But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that “the Father and Son are two substances…two things as to their essence,” and that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.”

The testimony of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown for several centuries after biblical times. Thus, those who believe in the Trinity are not “holding God in accurate knowledge.”

Soon, when God brings this present wicked system of things to its end, Trinitarian Christendom will be called to account. And she will be judged adversely for her God-dishonoring actions and doctrines. By honoring God as supreme and worshiping him on his terms, Jehovah’s Witnesses can avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom.*

The “Insight to the Scriptures” uses the church fathers as reference sources in areas of the two books.

So if the Watchtower has no problem “using” them, why would you?

 

[adf417]

Thanks for your post.
I mentioned Beduhn in answer to a claim in post 41 that there are “scant few Greek scholars supporting” the NWT. I’m not trying to be misleading, but I can’t post the whole book. (Please read the whole book if you can though!)

Your quote further supports what I was trying too make clear:


Having declared the NWT “one of the best English translations of the New Testament currently available” I was pleased to see Beduhn had some criticism. (It shows he is not a JW in disguise.) In his opinion, the reasons for including “Jehovah” in the New Testament are not good enough. He does not agree.

I’m not especially interested what the early Church fathers taught. Only what Jesus and his inspired apostles taught. I want an accurate translation for that since I can’t read Greek.

But just a point. JW’s don’t need the New World translation to teach the Bible. It didn’t exist until the 1960’s. (And then only in a few languages until recently) They happily used the King James Version and the American Standard Version for the 80 years prior, and what ever translation is available in the hundreds of other languages they teach in.
Don’t get it in your heads we made up some stuff and changed the Bible to suit. We just want an accurate translation that takes advantage of all the current findings.

I’m sure we all want to know what Jesus taught as accurately as possible.

I will dig up what Beduhn said about John 1:1 for you in a later post if you wish .

Greetings Regardless, May the lord be with you…

Let me get this straight. You are not interested in what the EFC’s taught? A group of men living in or around about the time of, spoke the same language as, & were friends with Christ and/or his apostles. But rather listen and quote form Jason BeDuhn the Manichaean (gnostic) teaching cosmology? I applaud your efforts to include an expert with no ties to your organization, but really!!!

Dr. Bruce Metzger, who has many more letters behind his name than BeDuhn, and does not have any ties to my organization, says the NWT is a “sham” and a “per-version”. Does this level the field? If not I can go on…

The name of God is introduced as “Jehovah” by the NWT in the NT 237 times and this text does not exist in any known Greek manuscript, which BTW BeDuhn agrees with. Now is Beduhn credible are not? If credible, you must remove the 237 “Jehovah” references in the NT of the NWT. Picking and choosing what BeDuhn has translated as truth could prove to be careless. No, this does not mean EVERYTHING BeDuhn says is either true or false. If he tells me his toe hurts, I would have to believe him. But in translation of the WORD we should not pick and choose.

Side note: This is where I hope all “bible-alone” Christians can see how far “bible-alone” theology can be distorted to…“de-bible-alone”, or is it “unbible-alone”.

Is it true, and I don’t have a good source on this so I am sincerely asking, that in John 8:58* “egō eimi” *in which my translation says “I am” and your translation says “I have been”, but in the NWT Greek bible where no translation is needed, the “egō eimi” has been changed to
“αρχίσει να” and/or “έρχονται σε”? I would think you could check into this easier than I. Surely this would not be considered “apostasy” or “independent thinking”.

Peace and blessings to you!!!

 

[adf417]

I Haven’t found it yet, but look what I did find: (I have done the underlining)

Quote…
*Translating John 1:1: The Coptic Evidence
(Solomon Landers, September 2006)

It is becoming well-known that the primary Coptic translations of John 1:1c – the
Sahidic, the proto-Bohairic, and the Bohairic – do not render it “the Word was
God,” as is common in many English versions, but “the Word was a god,”* found
notably in the New World Translation.
The significance of this is remarkable. First, the Coptic versions precede the New
World Translation by some 1,700 years, and are part of the corpus of ancient textual
witnesses to the Gospel of John. Second, the Coptic versions were produced at a
time when the Koine Greek of the Christian Greek Scriptures was still a living
language whose finer nuances could be understood by the Coptic translators, so
much so that many Greek words are left untranslated in the Coptic texts. Third,
the Coptic versions do not show the influence of later interpretations of Christology
fostered by the church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries CE.
End of quote…

Interesting?

Quite interesting I would add…

As stated above with the EFC’s and the millions of scholars that would disagree - but thank God for free will, we can believe whomever we wish.

As always, Peace!

 

[adf417]

Ah. Here you go. (Beduhn has a whole chapter on John 1:1. Weel worth reading to understand it)
Below is part of Beduhns conclusion on John 1:1…

(Quote…)
John says on the one hand that the Word was “with” ho theos, “God,” but on the other hand that the Word “was” theos, “a god.” It is striking, therefore, that most of the translations we are comparing take no notice of this careful distinction, and translate the different words as if they were exactly the same.
(Truth in Translation pg 115.)
(end of quote.)

It’s simple translation. Elsewhere all translations add the “a” in the same instances.
For example: John 4:19: “Sir, I perceive you are a prophet”.
The NIV, KJV, RSV and more all add “a”. None say: “Sir, you are Prophet.”
Mark 6:49. : " a ghost", John 8:44 : “a murderer”
John 10:1: “a thief”… I could go on…

But for some reason when John 1:1 says “the word was with theos” they ignore this grammer rule.
I strongly suspect the reason is it errodes the translators scant trinity evidence."

Cordial greetings Regardless,

From this analogy we will have to put an “a” in front of every noun in the bible…”In the beginning was the “a” Word, and the “a” Word was with “a” God, and the Word was “a” god”. Would then the NWT change the capitalization of “Word” and the other “God” to be gramatically correct also? Don’t get me wrong, I can see why one would want to take the easy way and use the same translational rule throughout the writings but it would begin to not make sense and then you begin to loose the original inspired intent of “only one God” In this case the NWT has made God’s word just another god which would put us in direct violation of the 1st commandment. Sense God doesn’t want this, and probably has has his own gramatical rules, the translation must stay as “God”. I’m sure other linguistics and textural criticism professionals could shed more light on this subject. But from a purely spiritual perspective, I do believe God’s word is “God’s” word not some god’s word don’t you?

Peace & juicy blessings to you!!!

 

[Kc906]

Read post 49 for the long complicate version, but basically Kc906 says:

“All knees bend to Jehovah in Isaiah 45, and Romans 14 quotes that.
All knees should bend to Jesus in Philippians. Therefore since they bend to Jesus and Jehovah: Jesus is Jehovah!”

Huh? That proves Jehovah is Jesus?

So by your arguement; if I said: “Everyone saluted the General”, and later I said: “Everyone saluted the President” - I would be saying the General and the president are the same person.

Just because ever knee bends to Jehovah in Isaiah, and every knee bends to Jesus in Philipians doesn;’t prove they are the same person.

Everyone could laugh at me, then everyone could laugh at you… but we aren’t the same person!

First, we are referring to inspired scripture which does not contradict itself by definition. I did not state once that Jesus and YHWH are the same person; I was eluding to them being the same divine entity, the same God. In Isaiah, Almighty God says in first person that “every knee will bend to ME.” When you get more context from Romans and Philippians, you realize that every knee will bend to Jesus. So when you look at these verses along with the totality of scripture, we see that it was actually Jesus himself, the Son, who was the one speaking in Isaiah.

Now your fallacious example could be relevant if this was referring to two different events, but this is not referring to two different events. In Isaiah and Romans every knee will bend to God Almighty and confess (or speak by the mouth) to God Almighty. In Philippians, which is referring to the same event, every knee will bend to Jesus and confess by the mouth Jesus Christ is Lord, and by doing so this glorifies God the Father.

By this point in time, God knew a savior would have to come to earth to save his people, and this savior was the Son. Of course God knew at the time of Isaiah that every knee would be bending to his Son at the end of the world, because he knew what his Son would accomplish. So I ask you again, did God Almighty not tell us the truth in Isaiah 45:22-24?

 

[Kc906]

I will quote my favourite Greek scholar Beduhn again to answer this:

quote:
“All” is commonly used in Greek as hyperbole. An exageration. The “other” is assumed. In one case, Paul takes the trouble to make this perfectly clear. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul catches himself saying that God will make all things subject to Christ. He stops and clarifies that “of course” when we say “all things” he doesn’t mean that God himself will be subject to Christ, but all other things will be, with Christ himself subject to God.
(end of quote)

Beduhn was here answering why the NWT adds “other” to Colossians 1. But the same principle must apply.
Note however, even thought the NWT have good reason to add “other” they draw everyones attention to it by putting it in closed brackets. [other] . Showing that specific word does not appear in any manuscript, but is added so the sentance makes sence in English. Many translations don’t draw the readers attention to added words at all!
What an acccurate and carefull translation you have access to!

In Post #51 I mentioned that based on John 2:19-22, Jesus is clearly showing that he will raise his Body on the 3rd day. A bodily resurrection means he still has his human nature once he is raised. Christ will always be subject to the Father since he was not resurrected in the same form he shared with his Father for eternity. You are mistaking “principle” with bias; which many common bible translations have today to some degree. The Watchtower failed to insert the word “other” in the beginning of John; not sure why since it is referring to the same event as 1 Colossians?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

If Jesus was made or created by the Father before the rest of creation took place, then John 1-3 does not support that belief. The reason inserting the word Other in Colossians is bias is because All things were made through Jesus, and without him nothing was made that was made. If Jesus were made first by the Father, then why did John state explicitly the opposite?

The initial release of the NWT did not have brackets around the word [other] in 1 Colossians. The more recent versions of the NWT have these brackets, but the Watchtower publications where the verses are referenced surprisingly do not. No reason to raise any suspicion among the sheep I suppose.

 

[CoRedeemer]

No, the point is, Jesus was standing beside God. They are different people.
And “at his right hand” is a supporting role. Not even equal.

And if you believe the Trinity, you will need an excuse why the co-equal, co-everything Holy Ghost wasn’t seen in the heavenly vision. Probably because this was before a Catholic Council in 381 AD.

Hello Regardless,

I would like if you could explain somethings from Revelation 6:9-11 where it says, “And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have.”

How is that Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that there is no life after dead when Revelation 6:9-10 mentions that these martyrs begin to cry out for vengence and justice? Well, if there is no life after death, then how is that these spirits where imploring God for revenge and justice? How can the dead talk or speak if there is no life after death? How was it that these souls who were slaughtered because of the word of God where able to speak after they had died?

What about Revelation 6:11 and it talks about how those souls who were slaughtered because of the word of God where given a white garment and where told to wait until their brothers and sisters and fellow servants would be killed as they had been killed. But how can you tell somebody dead to wait if they are dead? Or could it be that there is life after death?

What about Revelation 14:11 where it says, “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest, those who worship the wild beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

Notice how it says that their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest? Why does it say, “and day and night they have not rest?” Why does the book of Revelation make it clear that there is no rest from being tormented?

Thanks!

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Regardless:

DeBruhn is one “scholar” out of millions. JW are simply CLINGING to ONE person to validate their failed, tragic, elementary attempts to “translate” the scriptures. Stephen Byington did at least a better job with “The Bible in Living English” & WTBTS bought his translation AS IS with “Jehovah” and unwittingly printed it in the 80’s.

A couple of comparisons to consider:

The Bible in Living English, 1981 edition, page 1365 John 1:1:
“At the first there was the Word, and the Word was where God was, and the Word was God.”
vs.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, c. 1969, page 417:
"god was the Word."
KIT far right margin: “and the Word was a god.”

So the WTBTS in PRINT STATES:
the Word was God
god was the Word
the Word was a god

hmmmmm, let me see a rather vast difference in meaning one would suspect especially with that last line: what kind of “a god” with a small g!!! Jehovah says He’s the only one does He not?

Next let’s look at John 8:58 in the Byington page 1379:
"Jesus said to them “Verily, Verily I tell you, before there was an Abraham I am.” " This corresponds to the intimate existence of the Word, the Logos, with the Father in the beginning (Genesis) when God spoke His Word and by that Word the world was created.

Then jump to the KIT, page 467, John 8:58 below the Greek it states:
“Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I am.”

Again to the right margin, the WTBTS’ spin:
"Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” "

The most important points in John 8:58 WTBTS in PRINT STATES:
I am
I am
I have been

The Great I AM of Exodus is obviously REDUCED to the silly “I have been”; been* whaaaaat*… Jesus is stoned for having been, existed?*! Hmmmm… sounds like a crazy man. These 2 verses (I could put down a few more to illustrate my point) have POLAR OPPOSITE meanings.
Which is RIGHT?
Which is WRONG?
Both are printed by the WT - do they not stand behind what they print? No matter how fast they TAP DANCE, they can’t erase these verses, the horses are out of the barn. This is very problematic. WTBTS stands alone on these whizzers; Which verse do you condemn, which do you accept in this blatant SCRIPTURE TWISTING.

The question remains: Which Bible does one BURN or keep? Could create rather overwhelming confusion to many but as always GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION!!!

See Wikipedia’s “Bible Errata” & for list of Bibles condemned & some even burned as the ignorant may have gotten quite the wrong message ex.“The Murderer’s Bible”. For someone to declare the NWT as the best Bible translation would be absolutely hilarious if there are so many souls at stake, it’s a dead serious problem.

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL!!!

 

[PRmerger]

Read post 49 for the long complicate version, but basically Kc906 says:

“All knees bend to Jehovah in Isaiah 45, and Romans 14 quotes that.
All knees should bend to Jesus in Philippians. Therefore since they bend to Jesus and Jehovah: Jesus is Jehovah!”

Huh? That proves Jehovah is Jesus?

So by your arguement; if I said: “Everyone saluted the General”, and later I said: “Everyone saluted the President” - I would be saying the General and the president are the same person.

Just because ever knee bends to Jehovah in Isaiah, and every knee bends to Jesus in Philipians doesn;’t prove** they are the same person.**

Everyone could laugh at me, then everyone could laugh at you… but we aren’t the same person!

I think, Regardless, that you are demonstrating a deficient understanding of the Christian dogma of the Trinity.

We do not believe Jesus and God are the same person. We believe that there are 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in One God.

Jesus and God are not **the same person.
**
Now, the verses cited in Isaiah and Romans **and **Philippians demonstrate that Jesus is God, but not that they are the same person.

Just curious: do the JWs profess that one can bend the knee to a person? I ask without any guile–I simply don’t know the answer, although I would guess that the Watchtower would vehemently disapprove of any person bowing before another man.

Catholics, of course, understand that bowing to someone is not the same as worshipping God, so we may bow before men.

But that’s a subject for another time. Isaiah, Romans and Philippians clearly demonstrate that those who bend the knee before Jesus are bending the knee before God.

 

[CoRedeemer]

No, the point is, Jesus was standing beside God. They are different people.
And “at his right hand” is a supporting role. Not even equal.

And if you believe the Trinity, you will need an excuse why the co-equal, co-everything Holy Ghost wasn’t seen in the heavenly vision. Probably because this was before a Catholic Council in 381 AD.

Hello Regardless,

Here is something interesting for Catholics and for you, Jehovah’s witnesses. What do you think about this very interesting story which had helped me a lot to understand things about Our Father.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote in his book: The Priest is not his own! ‘A father said one day to his son,’ “I existed before you did, and therefore the father existed before the son.” But the boy answered, “Oh, no! You did not begin to be a father until I BEGAN to be a son!”

Well, the message of this story is that, God the Father could never call Himself a Father without having first a Son. It is just logical… Well, here’s a good example: How can any man say to himself, “I am a father!” without having children? He can’t, because he is childless.

Then what about God the Father? He, too, must be a Father because of His Son, Jesus Christ. But ask yourself: “So is God the Father uncreated?” Yes, He is! The Father is uncreated." But now ask yourself, "When was God the Father - Father?

It is said that God’s nature is uncreated, which means that even God’s Fatherhood is uncreated. But ask yourself, "If at one stage there was no Son, Jesus Christ, then how could God the Father’s uncreated nature hold together??? He can’t without having His Son. So, because the Father has an uncreated nature or personality, that is, “Father,” and because this Father’s nature is uncreated, and so in order to match His uncreated nature or personality as the Father uncreated, He would need then a Son eternal, uncreated, to support His uncreated Fatherhood.

Well, there is no way that God the Father’s uncreated personality or nature could be “Father” if He is without Sonhood, the Son. For instance: Can a man without children say, “I am father,” but he has no children? No, he can not! And because the nature of God the Father is uncreated, therefore, in order to fill in this uncreated Fatherhood He would need then an uncreated Son to make God’s Fatherhood work in the uncreated nature, which is the Father and the Son. So let us not forget the Holy Spirit, amen! This is the Holy Trinity, Ladies and Gentlemen! This is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Amen.

What do you think?

 

[CoRedeemer]

Can the Fatherhood of God which is uncreated be created? No, He never created a Fatherhood, since then God would be creating Himself. But God can never create Himself because His very nature is perfectly uncreated.

This means that He can never added anything to his divinity, He can never change it, nor did he become a Father in some point in time, but God the Father was always the Father uncreated, because He is perfectly uncreated and complete. Therefore God can never change into a Father or Fatherhood since by His very uncreated nature of Father is, and had always been God the Father.

This is where Jehovah’s Witnesses do not understand that God the Father had always been God the Father. There never was a period in time where God was only God but not the Father. No, but He had always been the uncreated Father. He is the uncreated, which means He can’t change His divinity! Therefore, a father without the son is not a Father at all. And God the Father by His uncreated nature can never be Father unless He has an uncreated Sonship, Son. If you are a father and have children you will understand this. You can’t be a father without Children. Therefore God the uncreated Father is God and has an uncreated Sonship with Jesus Christ who is God. So, Jesus Christ the Son, is God in the communion of the uncreated Fatherhood. As John 1:3 says it nicely about the Fatherhood, “God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.” This is so true!

So, if the Son does not know the hour or the day for the end of the world, this is because the function of the Son does not require the knowledge. The function of the Son is not to be nor become the Father. Instead, the function of the Son is to allow the Father to create everything through Him and for Him to be God.

So, the Fatherhood of God is uncreated making the Son Jesus Christ uncreated, too.

God love you!

 

[adf417]

Can the Fatherhood of God which is uncreated be created? No, He never created a Fatherhood, since then God would be creating Himself. But God can never create Himself because His very nature is perfectly uncreated.

This means that He can never added anything to his divinity, He can never change it, nor did he become a Father in some point in time, but God the Father was always the Father uncreated, because He is perfectly uncreated and complete. Therefore God can never change into a Father or Fatherhood since by His very uncreated nature of Father is, and had always been God the Father.

This is where Jehovah’s Witnesses do not understand that God the Father had always been God the Father. There never was a period in time where God was only God but not the Father. No, but He had always been the uncreated Father. He is the uncreated, which means He can’t change His divinity! Therefore, a father without the son is not a Father at all. And God the Father by His uncreated nature can never be Father unless He has an uncreated Sonship, Son. If you are a father and have children you will understand this. You can’t be a father without Children. Therefore God the uncreated Father is God and has an uncreated Sonship with Jesus Christ who is God. So, Jesus Christ the Son, is God in the communion of the uncreated Fatherhood. As John 1:3 says it nicely about the Fatherhood, “God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.” This is so true!

So, if the Son does not know the hour or the day for the end of the world, this is because the function of the Son does not require the knowledge. The function of the Son is not to be nor become the Father. Instead, the function of the Son is to allow the Father to create everything through Him and for Him to be God.

So, the Fatherhood of God is uncreated making the Son Jesus Christ uncreated, too.

God love you!

I like these last 2 posts CoRedeemer & PRmerger.

Thanks and Happy Easter

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Jesus was with the Father from the beginning as the Word/Logos (He did not “become” God or “a god” - which heresy is that? I’d have to look it up). At the Incarnation, one of the 2 greatest events in all of history, taking on flesh the Logos becomes the Word, lowering himself to a little less than the angels.

God is pure spirit, divine nature
angels are pure spirit
animals are pure matter
humans are spirit and matter
Jesus Christ/The Word of God became incarnate: divine nature & matter

 

[PRmerger]

I like these last 2 posts CoRedeemer & PRmerger.

Thanks and Happy Easter

Right back at cha, adf!

 

[Kc906]

Please do show me where the Bible says Christ is Jehovah.

Certain topics attract many people which have different points and questions they want answered; like this one. It can be hard to reply to everyone, but I like everyone i’m sure appreciate a different point of view in the conversation, Regardless. Debate is always healthy in my mind, as long as we respect each other.

Believing in the Trinity and not believing in the Trinity is a fundamental difference between “Christendom” and JW’s, Unitarians, Mormons, etc…I think you and others would like to know “why” we believe what we believe. Scripture is perfect, and in perfect scripture there are many Old Testament and New Testament verses that equate God Almighty (YHWH) with the Word, Jesus Christ, or show the Son speaking as God Almighty. What I provided was just one example. Another in depth example that is not normally seen by people reading scripture is that it was the God the Son speaking to Moses from the burning bush Exodus 3:1-4. Or, that it was actually the Son leading Israel out of Egypt via the Cloud during the day, and the Fire by night 1 Corinthians 10:1-4

If you actually read scripture and let it explain itself to you (sounds like Sola Scriptura, I know,) then you will let Christ open your eyes to the truth of who he really is. If you look up the writings of the Early Christians that even the Governing Body of the Watchtower “acknowledge,” you will see what they believed based on what they were taught via oral tradition, and from what they read from the Word. The apostles and Ante-Nicene Fathers were definitely Trinitarians, because the One true God eternally and co-equally exists in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.