Jehova Witness and Church of Scientology

Well thoght ot LB. I will have to read it more carefully when I respond to it . I am tired right now as it is almost 2am here. I would like to address one part of your post right now and will respond to the rest of it tommorrow hopefully.

Matt 8: 2.
The Greek pro·sky·ne'o which you have refered to as “worship” in Matt 8: 2. should be more properly translated “Obeisance”. Which can simply mean an act of respect. So yes, Jesus accepted this kind of address much as a king or other important person would

Click to expand...

I can show you several verses using this verse. 1 will be good enough to show that this word is also used in reference to worshiping God.
Revelation 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it
not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the
prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book:
worship God.

proskuneo verb imper aor act 2nd per sing , from proskune,w
worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another's
feet

If the angel told John to worship God using this word then you can also say that when all these different people mentioned through out the NT worshiped Jesus it was the same as in worshiping God.

I will post more latter got to get some sleep.

Cheers Cougan, have a good kip M8.

I totally agree, the the word (pro·sky·ne'o) also conveyes the thought of worship, I was,nt trying to convey other wise.  Simply that, whether you use (pro·sky·ne'o) to imply Obeisance or worship is dependent on the context.  And at the place you quoted it, clearly Obeisance would more appropriate.

Best regards.

I hope to be able to post respond tonight. I am using the office computer right now. Last night I got to make a few post before the lighting blew up my modem. I should have my new modem installed today so I can re enter into this discussion once again.

I will post in my own words latter as we continue this discussion but I would like to offer the following article that might be helpful.

THE GODHEAD

Since the first two false doctrines we will consider relate to several verses pertaining to the Godhead, some general comments and observations relative to this subject are in order. The fundamental meaning of Godhead is:

"...that of `Godhood,' the state, dignity, condition, quality ... of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God. When we ascribe Godhead to a being, therefore, we affirm that all that enters into the idea of God belongs to Him."<1>

We do not have the space to show how all the characteristics and attributes of the Godhead apply to Jesus Christ,<2> but will demonstrate that, according to John 1:1 and other Scriptures, Jesus is identified as being part of the Godhead. The Godhead is one God, but there are three persons who are identified as being God, thus possessing the characteristics and attributes belonging to the Godhead.<3> The term Godhead is used only three times in the King James Version of the Bible (Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9). Col. 2:9 says of Christ, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."<4> No other verse would be needed to prove that Jesus is God.

There are not three separate Gods, as "Jehovah's Witnesses" accuse us of believing, but one God in the three persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is God (1 Cor. 8:6); the "Word," which became flesh in the person of Jesus, is called "God" (John 1:1,14,18); and the Holy Spirit is identified as "God" (Acts 5:3-4). These three are also grouped together many times (Matt. 28:18-19; Rom. 15:30; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; Heb. 2:3-4; 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:2; 3:18; Jude 1:20-21; et al.). While the word "Trinity" is not used in the Scripture, the meaning of the word is. "Tri" means "three," and "unity" means "one"; thus, as one of our songs reads, the Godhead is "God in three persons, blessed Trinity." However, we much prefer using the Biblical term Godhead.

Jehovah's Witnesses and a few other groups contend that New Testament passages about the Son's being sent (John 3:16), the Son's sending the Spirit (John 16:7), and other indications of rank and subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, show that the Son and Holy Spirit are not equal and cannot be in the Godhead. Most denominations believe that the Father and Son relationship has existed from eternity. The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) and other creeds that followed it state that the eternal Son was "begotten before all ages" or speak of His "eternal generation."<5> Scripture cannot sustain the concept of "eternal Sonship." Alexander Campbell made the following observations:

"The names Jesus, Christ or Messiah, Only Begotten Son, Son of God, belong to the Founder of the Christian religion, and to none else. They express not a relation existing before the Christian era, but the relation which commenced at that time. To understand the relation betwixt the Saviour and his Father, which existed before time, and that relation which began in time, is impossible on either of these theories of Arianism<6> and Calvinism<7> .... The relation that was before the Christian era, was not that of a son and a father, terms which always imply disparity; but it was that expressed by John in the sentence under consideration (John 1:1). The relation was that of God and the "word of God." This phraseology unfolds a relation quite different from that of a father and a son -- a relation perfectly intimate, equal, and glorious ... The Holy Spirit selected the name Word, and therefore we may safely assert that this is the best, if not the only term, in the vocabulary of human speech at all adapted to express that relationship which existed "in the beginning," or before all time, between our Saviour and his God."<8>

Jack Cottrell makes a suggestion worthy of consideration, along the same line as Campbell, for understanding how the members of the Godhead can be equal and yet understand New Testament language which expresses submission and subordination of the Son to the Father. Cottrell believes it is helpful to think in terms of the "ontological Trinity,"<9> which is the eternal relationship of the Godhead before time began, and the "economic Trinity,"<10> which reveals the roles of the three persons in the Godhead in bringing about the redemption of mankind. The so-called "economic Trinity," according to God's revealed plan, required the act of "sending" and acts of submission.

The basic point in the foregoing concept is that there is a kind of division of labor so that not every work is done by all three persons (of the Godhead), in the same way at least. This is particularly true of the various facets of redemption. The so-called "ontological Trinity" on the other hand, has to do with how the three persons are related to one another within their own being, totally apart from any manifestations or works directed outside themselves.<11>

A Scriptural example of the various works of the Godhead in the so-called "economic Trinity" is Peter's statement to those who are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:2) Numerous expressions acknowledge the Son's submission to the Father (e.g., John 3:16; 5:22,26-27,30; 10:18,36; 17:22; et al.). However, these expressions of the relationship between the Father and Son during Christ's incarnation do not demote "the Word (Who) became flesh" (John 1:1,14,18) from being co-equal with the others in the eternal Godhead. Cottrell is right when he denies that the idea of Sonship was ever intended to be thought of as an eternal relationship in the Godhead.

Though "eternal Sonship" has been the accepted way of explaining the ontological Trinity since the fourth century, we must seriously ask whether it is justified by Scripture and whether it is meaningful to use these terms in this context. It is altogether doubtful whether the Bible ever intended the concepts of the begettal of Jesus and the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from heaven to apply to the eternal relationships among persons of the Trinity. For example, the New Testament applies Ps. 2:7 ("Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee") to the resurrection (Acts 13:33), when Jesus became the first-born from the dead (Col. 1:18). Begettal might well apply to the incarnation (Luke 1:35), as might the term [@monogenes] ("only begotten"). It is almost certain that the "proceeding" (of the Holy Spirit from God) of John 15:26 refers to Pentecost and not to some supposed eternal relationship.<12>

Perhaps these remarks will help us to see the truth in contrast to the errors in the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals on the Godhead.


WAS JESUS MERELY "A GOD," A CREATED BEING, AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ALLEGE? (JOHN 1:1; 14:28)

This question calls for a consideration of Arianism (see endnote No. 6). Jehovah's Witnesses are modern Arians who deny that Jesus is a member of the Godhead. They base their denial on a faulty understanding of the language of the Greek New Testament on John 1:1. Also, they consider the Father and Son relationship to exclude Jesus from being equal to God in any way. We have already dealt with the latter of these two matters, so we proceed to a discussion of the verses listed above. The KJV renders John 1:1 in this manner:

Clause "a" -- "In the beginning was the Word,

Clause "b" -- and the Word was with God,

Clause "c" -- and the Word was God."


The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders John 1:1 this way:

Clause "a" -- "In (the) beginning the Word was,

Clause "b" -- and the Word was with God,

Clause "c" -- and the Word was a god."<13>


Jehovah's Witnesses insist that Jesus is "a created spirit being, just as the angels were spirit beings created by God."<14> Again, Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus is not "one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead."<15> A correct understanding of John 1:1 will disprove their contentions. The following interlinear chart of the Greek and the literal English text will aid the reader in following our study. The Greek words are spelled out in English characters according to manuscript requirements. At the bottom of the chart we have identified the parts of speech which will also be discussed. John 1:1 thus reads as follows:

1a Greek: [@En] [@arche] [@en] [@ho] [@logos],

1a English: In beginning was the Word,



1b Greek: [@kai] [@ho] [@logos] [@en] [@pros] [@ton] [@Theon],

1b English: and the Word was with the God,



1c Greek: [@kai] [@Theos] [@en] [@ho] [@logos].<16>

1c English: and God was the Word.


Parts of conjunc- nomin- verb definite subject

Speech: tion native article noun

|________________|

Predicate

The reader is asked to note that in 1b above the word "God" has the definite article "the" in front of it, but in 1c God does not have the definite article. Jehovah's Witnesses say that because "God" in 1c does not have a definite article in front of it, it must be indefinite and mean "a god" of lesser significance.<17> However, the use or non-use of the Greek definite article is not so simple. A. T. Robertson, in his massive Greek grammar, uses forty-two pages discussing the use or absence of the definite article in Greek.<18> No indefinite article in the Greek corresponds to our English indefinite article, "a". A noteworthy fact is that in the Greek text of John 1:6,12,13,18 the word "God" also appears without the definite article before it. Yet, Jehovah's Witnesses did not translate those verses as "a god." So they do realize that "God" without the definite article before it can and most often does mean God with a capital "G."

John 1:1 affirms three things: (1) the pre-existence of the Word (1a)' (2) the fellowship of the Word with God (1b); and (3) the Word shares in the very being of God, or Godhead (1c). (The name "Word" in Greek is [@Logos]. We will define [@Logos] when we discuss the doctrines of the Oneness Pentecostals.) But what does the absence of the definite article before "God" in 1c mean? Does it mean the Word is a lesser "god"? Absolutely not! Greek scholar Bruce Metzger calls the Jehovah's Witnesses' "translation" a "frightful mistranslation" and says, "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."<19> Is it not strange that Jehovah's Witnesses accuse true Christians of believing in many Gods because we say that there are three equal persons as one God, but Jehovah's Witnesses actually make more than one God when they make Jesus "a god"! Metzger then gives the following comments on the Jehovah's Witnesses' mistranslation of John 1:1c --

"It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, `...and the Word was God.' Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that `A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb....' The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun (see chart above). The absence of the article (before [@Theos] in 1:1c) does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement (`and the Word was God') cannot be regarded as strange in the Prologue of the Gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (`My Lord and my God,' (John 20:28)."<20>

Metzger notes that while Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to bolster their arguments by showing thirty-five passages where the predicate noun has the article, "None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every instance the predicate noun stands AFTER the verb..."<21>

Although some recent writers have challenged some elements of Colwell's rule for the use of the Greek definite article, they still acknowledge that the Greek text and context of John 1:1 demand that 1c be translated "and the Word was God."<22>

Christ is not a created Being, but the Creator of all that has been created. John 1:3 affirms that very point and says, "and without him was not anything made that was made." Not anything would include Christ Himself. Col. 1:15 does not say that Christ was the first thing created, but that He is the "firstborn of all creation" (ASV). The word "firstborn" means "priority to, and preeminence over creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born."<23> The same holds true from passages where He is said to be "the beginning" (Col. 1:18; Rev. 3:14). Since John 1:1 says Christ (the Word) was already existing "in the beginning," other passages cannot mean He was the first being created. The beginning in those passages means that Jesus is "the origin, the active cause" or source of all creation.<24>

F. F. Bruce, another Greek scholar of major recognition, gives another reason why God ([@Theos]) in John 1:1c does not have the article in front of it.

"The structure of the third clause in verse 1 (marked 1c above), [@theos] [@en] [@ho] [@logos], demands the translation `The Word was God.' Since [@logos] (`Word') has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that [@Theos] is the first word after the conjunction [@kai] (`and') shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had [@Theos] as well as [@logos] been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God (in 1b), which is impossible if the Word was also `with God.' What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God. ... The NEB paraphrase, `what God was, the Word was,' brings out the meaning as successfully as a paraphrase can. `John intends that the whole of his Gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous.'"<25>

Someone might read the above and say, "What is wrong in saying that Jesus as the Word is identical with the God in John 1:1b? I thought you were saying the Word is an equal sharer in the Godhead." Equality and identity are two different things. The Word was equal to the God of 1b, but since He was "with God," He could not be identical to the God of 1b. According to the context of John 1:1-18, the God of 1b must have reference to the person of God identified as the Father. In John 1:14 the Word is said to have come in the flesh to dwell among men. As He became flesh, the Word became the "only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). In John 1:18, the God Whom no man has seen is "declared" or revealed by the "only begotten Son." At the time John wrote, the Son was back in heaven, once again in intimate fellowship "with God" the Father, in His "bosom." While the Holy Spirit is God, as the Father and His only begotten Son are God, in John 1:1-18 the Spirit does not receive the attention given to the Father and Son. The Word in 1b was "with God," Who is revealed in John's prologue as the Father. However, if there were a definite article in the Greek text before God in 1c, we would be forced to conclude that the Word (who became the Son) and the Father (who sent Him) were identical, the same person. This fact exposes the errors of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals alike.

What of John 14:28, where Jesus states, "The Father is greater than I"? Does this mean that Jesus is a lesser god? No, for the material already given on the Godhead answers this Jehovah's Witnesses' argument along with the material on John 1:1. The late Guy N. Woods sees in this verse a mild rebuke toward Christ's disciples. They were only thinking of themselves, but should have rejoiced that Jesus would soon be returning to His Father, for that would mean a return to the glory He had with God previously (cf. John 17:1-5).

"It is important to realize that ... these statements in the sacred writings (about the Son's being subordinate to the Father) ... are all to be understood as referring to his incarnate state in which he voluntarily accepted a position of subordination; and not to his eternal state. His nature is the same as the nature of the Father and he is of the same essence... To regain this equality it was necessary that Jesus return to heaven."<26>

There can be no doubt that one of the reasons the Holy Spirit led John to write his Gospel account was to demonstrate, in greater depth than do the Synoptic accounts, the Deity of the Word Who became flesh as Jesus Christ. John 1:1 teaches "the Word was God." The United Bible Societies' and the Nestle-Aland's Greek New Testaments contend that the "only begotten Son" reading of the King James and American Standard versions in John 1:18 should read "only begotten God."<27> The New International, New American Standard, and New Revised Standard versions all have "God" in place of "Son" in John 1:18. (Unfortunately, the objectionable features in these latter versions outweigh their occasional good renderings, making them dangerous and unreliable.

"Only begotten God" makes an interesting reading, but it is questionable and not essential in proving Christ to be God. Add to John's prologue the "I AM" statements of Jesus (John 8:24,58, references to Exo. 3:13-14) and the "My Lord and my God" confession of Thomas (John 20:28), and one has impressive evidence that John exalts Jesus as God throughout his gospel record! Jesus accepted Thomas' exclamation without any hint of rebuke or suggestion that Thomas was in error, which is especially noteworthy since three times in the New Testament there are rebukes for worship directed toward men and angels (Acts 10:25-26; 14:11-15; Rev. 22:8-9). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Christ is worthy of worship, which none but God may rightfully accept. Jesus is not "a god," but fully "God."

WOW!!!

Hi again Cougan. Did you put some effort into that or what. (No sarcasm intended)

It's all Greek to me M8.&nbsp; However, I did find some of the points you raised thought provoking, especially thost to do with Christs creation and being the Only-Begotten.

My research, though not as lengthy as yours, uncovered these interesting (well to me anyway) points.

Firstborn of creation

Jesus could not possibly be God himself, for God did created Jesus. When Colossians 1:15, 16 says of Jesus: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; (Firstborn means Firstborn, Being born means having a beginning). This is confirmed by Revelation chapter 3, verse 14: “These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness [Jesus], the beginning of the creation of God.” thats why Col 1: 15, 16 goes on to say “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.”

So in heaven almighty God directly created his Son and then “by means of him,” or “through him,” created other things, much as a skilled workman might have a trained employee do work for him. Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 speaking of Jesus as personified wisdom also confirms this saying &nbsp;“God himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. . . . I came to be beside [God] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.” Those things created “by means of him” did not include Jesus himself, for God had already created him. Thus, he is called the “firstborn,” the “only-begotten.” And again at Rev 3: 14; the beginning of the creation of God.”

It cannot be as you say that, “As He became flesh, the Word became the "only begotten of the Father" because John 3: 16 says, “God loved the world so much that he sent (Not his son to become the only begotten but) his only Begotten son. He was the Only Begotten before he was sent.

The apostle John repeatedly describes Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Logos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world."&nbsp; 1Jo 4:9.&nbsp; He is described as having “a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father,” the one residing “in the bosom position with the Father.” (John 1:14, 18) It is hard to think of a closer, more confidential, or more loving and tender relationship between a father and his son.

The angels of heaven are sons of God even as Adam was a “son of God.” (Ge 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7; Lu 3:38) But the Logos, later called Jesus, is “the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) He is the only one of his kind, the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. He is the only one whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures.

Cougan,

I thought you were helping me? First you told me that Jesus is God. If that is true, then I should be able to pray to him just like I hear the ministers on TV do, as I channel surf.

Then when I am all set to begin doing things your way, you tell me that YOU do not pray to Jesus.......but that you pray to the Father just as Jesus did.

But that is what J.W.s do.------------And the church ministers and TV ministers often pray to Jesus.

You are more like J.W.s then they are!!

And does it upset you that they (these religious leaders are doing something contrary to what you say you do?)

I am just a common person of average intelligence and studying Greek is beyond me. I could easily get confused and I know debates on John 1:1 and other texts have raged on for thousands of years.

All I want to do is be a Christian. Should I follow Jesus or not? Should I imitate him or not? Should he be my teacher or not?

Who did Jesus tell me to pray to?
Who did Jesus pray to?
Who did Jesus have a personal relationship with?
Who did Jesus identify that his true followers would worship when speaking to the woman at the well?

Since this discussion has turned into a debate (rules prohibit debates in the Questions About Christianity forum), this thread has been moved here for further discussion. Please remember to keep cool heads and be kind to each other in responding.

Thank you.

MizDoulos: You wise words of council are much appreciated. Grazi.

I am very sorry for my slow response. I have not given this dissussion as much priorty as the the other ones I am involved with. Please be patient with me because I have been wanting to have a discussion with JW for a while now. So Lared and LightBearer dont abandon me just give me time. I think that we can all learn something in this discussion and if anything at least we are seeking to understand the the truth. Even though I have not been posting I have been studing the matter and of the GodHead so that I can give an easy to understand answer. We have been mainly focused in on Jesus at this point. I also want to cover the HS also. Then after we finish talking about that then we can discuss several more topics that we disagree on.

Lared I do not belive that one should pray to Jesus. Jesus told us to pray to the father in his name. In fact look at what Jesus says in John 16: 23 "And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you.

Here Jesus tells us that we will not ask him anything but we will ask the father in his name. It is quit clear indeed. Yes it does make me sad when I see people on TV proclaiming many false doctrines. Yes we are to imatate Jesus and follow his example. Lared there are many helpful books and software programs that will help you look at the greek. I dont know if the the arguement of John 1:1 has been going on for a thousand years or not, but that does not mean it cant be resolved. I found 282 instances in the NT with the word God without the definatal article the there. It should be easy to conclude that it should not be translated "a god" just when it refers to christ. LB I will deal more with your questions in another post. Before I start pointing out verse after verse maybe it would help if I described the Godhead in human terms. None of the things I am about to present can fully represent the the GodHead nor will I claim that I know all there is to know about the GodHead. I do believe that the bible does give a lot of info on the subject. The problem lies in that it is hard for us to comperhend how 3 can be 1. Well if I were to put into a mathmatical equastion I would say 1x1x1=1. This would repersent the triune nature of God. How about an egg it has a yolk, meat, and the outside shell but yet it is 1. Or how about how water can be both a gas, liquid, and solid but yet it of the same substance. I believe that the bible teaches that the father is deity, Jesus is deity and the HS is deity. They are 3 sepearate and distinct persons but they are one being all 3 deity. They have the perfect unity. I think that the body of Christ that is his church was set up or at least emulates that of the GodHead. You have the Father who is the planner, The son is the executers of those plans, and the HS is the organizer and power behing the miracles. They are perfect in unity and are equally diety but they have different funtions. The same is true for the chruch. It is said that their is 1 body but many members. The members are equal but they have different funtions in the body. Not everone is an eye. We as members of Christ body are to strive together to be of the same mind being one in unity just like the unity in the GodHead. Well I can barely keep my eyes open I want to finish there for now. I will work on responding to your questions and makeing more points about the diety of Jesus.

Until next time.

Cougan:

Don't feel you have to aplogise to me for anything. A discussion is a disscusion, nothing more. You just go about your daily life and please don't feel under presure to respond to anything I have to say. What has been said has been said, it's not going anywhere. Take as much time as you like, if I speak to you a month from now it makes no difference.

By the way, I read your other posts with interest, you demonstrate a sharp insight on scripture. Your argument&nbsp;that&nbsp; baptism (in water)&nbsp;is a requirement&nbsp;for all christians&nbsp;was correct.

Regards.

Interesting stuff about Jesus being God. Yes, no, maybe so.
Jesus did say, "I and the Father are one".
Jesus also put a very definite distinction between God and Himself.
Luke 18:19 - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
So, Jesus saw the difference between God and Himself.
Jesus is God, He is one with both the Father and Holy Spirit, but Jesus is not God Almighty. God Almighty is the one Jesus worships, and the one Jesus said is the only "good" one.
Jesus is the Son of God, He is the exact likeness of God, and He has the only body of God. But God Almighty is spirit, and no man has seen God Almighty.
The confussion comes about if the dual nature of God is left out. The Son is the physical manifistation of God Almighty, and so He is God in that respect. But God Almighty is the only one that has the power to undo everything, in which case the Son would no longer be any type of manifistation, but merely a twinkling in Gods eye. Jesus is going through all the stages of Life, as are we. Jesus is also fully man, so He lives life as men do. That is how we can follow Him to heaven, He leads the way for us to follow. But as man is meant to be His Bride, we are also a part of the Son of God. And as such, we are also one with God through the Holy Spirit, if we are doing the Fathers will. Those of us that are saved are the Bride of Jesus. We are the female Holy Spirit and Jesus is the male Father, physically manifested. And Jesus is also the Holy Spirit through both the Holy Spirit directly (from the conception of Jesus by God the Father and Holy Spirit) and the Holy Spirit through Mary. So in essence, we are not necessary for the completeness of God Almighty, Jesus does that all by Himself. But we are a part of Jesus, the female part that is to be His wife.
We are actually the heart, within the heart of Jesus, within the Heart of God Amighty.
We are all one.

1 John 2
21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

&nbsp;

I have placed the above verse in defense of Lared and any other christian&nbsp; (&nbsp; no matter what their denomination&nbsp; )&nbsp;&nbsp; who believe that jesus is the christ .

I know that Lared will not deny that jesus is the christ ,&nbsp; how do I know ?

Because I have friends who are jw's&nbsp;, and they are not cultists as is offten taught&nbsp; ,&nbsp; they may have some strange teachings , but don't all denominations differ one from another ?

Yet , no christian denomination denies that jesus is the christ&nbsp; .

Just noticed,it looks like someone took a cattle type branding iron to the sheep's forehead

Originally posted by LightBearer
WOW!!!

Hi again Cougan. Did you put some effort into that or what. (No sarcasm intended)

It's all Greek to me M8.&nbsp; However, I did find some of the points you raised thought provoking, especially thost to do with Christs creation and being the Only-Begotten.

My research, though not as lengthy as yours, uncovered these interesting (well to me anyway) points.

Firstborn of creation

Jesus could not possibly be God himself, for God did created Jesus. When Colossians 1:15, 16 says of Jesus: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; (Firstborn means Firstborn, Being born means having a beginning). This is confirmed by Revelation chapter 3, verse 14: “These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness [Jesus], the beginning of the creation of God.” thats why Col 1: 15, 16 goes on to say “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.”

So in heaven almighty God directly created his Son and then “by means of him,” or “through him,” created other things, much as a skilled workman might have a trained employee do work for him. Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 speaking of Jesus as personified wisdom also confirms this saying &nbsp;“God himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. . . . I came to be beside [God] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.” Those things created “by means of him” did not include Jesus himself, for God had already created him. Thus, he is called the “firstborn,” the “only-begotten.” And again at Rev 3: 14; the beginning of the creation of God.”

It cannot be as you say that, “As He became flesh, the Word became the "only begotten of the Father" because John 3: 16 says, “God loved the world so much that he sent (Not his son to become the only begotten but) his only Begotten son. He was the Only Begotten before he was sent.

The apostle John repeatedly describes Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Logos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world."&nbsp; 1Jo 4:9.&nbsp; He is described as having “a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father,” the one residing “in the bosom position with the Father.” (John 1:14, 18) It is hard to think of a closer, more confidential, or more loving and tender relationship between a father and his son.

The angels of heaven are sons of God even as Adam was a “son of God.” (Ge 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7; Lu 3:38) But the Logos, later called Jesus, is “the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) He is the only one of his kind, the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. He is the only one whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures.

Click to expand...

The astute reader will observe that Christ is not termed the first-created but rather the [@prototokos], "first-born," of all creation. He is not herein compared to the "other" creatures.&nbsp; He Himself was not created.&nbsp; The Jehovah's Witnesses&nbsp;contends erroneously that Christ is but a created being -- "a god."&nbsp; The same Greek phrase which is here translated "all creation" is translated in Rom. 8:22 "the whole creation." But notice the reason that Christ is described as "the first-born of all creation."&nbsp; The reason is that He created all things (Col. 1:16).&nbsp; Did Christ create Himself?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The word translated "first-born" has reference to Christ's supremacy, His rank.&nbsp; Notice the idea of rank in Ps. 89:27 -- "I also will make him my firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth."&nbsp; Christ is infinite, superlatively superior to the whole creation, for He is our Creator and our High Priest, the God-man, the author of our salvation (Heb. 12:1-2).&nbsp; To the Jew, the words lord, heir, first-born had the same meaning (See Gen. 27:37; 2 Chr. 21:3; Gal. 4:1).&nbsp; With the Hebrews, the first-born had a special place of rule and a double portion in the inheritance, assuming the father's title in some countries.&nbsp; Though not in every respect paralleling the firstborn in a Hebrew family (since He was not created but rather Creator),this term does refer to the Lordship of Christ.&nbsp; He is preeminent, supreme Ruler, "the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).&nbsp; "He is Lord of all" (Acts 10:36).&nbsp; He sits "in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also that which is to come" (Eph. 1:20-21). Before Him all shall bow, if not in this world, then in the world to come (Phil. 2:9-11).

Again I point you to Is 43:10 where God says that there was not a God formed before him or after him. If Jesus was a created God as you state I dont see how you can get around this verse. Then going back to John 1:1 you see that Jesus was in the begining. ( the word "was" here is an impefect tense form which asserts the "continuous timeless existence" of Jesus) Just look at Isa 44:6 and you will see both the father and the word both agreeing and saying I am the first and I am the last Besides me there is no God.&nbsp; Both Jesus and the Father are deity. In rev 3:14 the word beginning sometimes carries the meaning of "orginiator" conveying the idea of that by which something begins to be, rather than implying chronological commencement. I believe that Rev 3:14 refers to Christ role as creator and not to an alledged orgin. Now watch this. Rev 21:6 says that God is the beginning (same greek word in&nbsp;Rev 3:14) and the end. Does this mean that Jehovah was created? I think you can see clearly see the problem with your view. One last point. If the word beginning denotes the Lords commencement in time would the word end suggest an ultimate termaination for God? The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there never was a time when the Second Person in the Godhead did not exist (cf. Mic. 5:2; Isa. 9:6; Jn. 1:1; 8:58).

Another thing you will notice with your New World Translation is that it inserts the word "other" which does not belong there in Col 1:17 And he is before all (other) things, and by him all things consist. There was abosolutly no grammatical reason for them to insert this word because it is no where to be found in the greek.

Here is another article worth reading.

<B>Is there a possibility that before the Universe was created that God, the “Ancient of days,” was all alone, and that out of his own being he brought into existence the Word, who eventually became Jesus Christ?</B> No, that is not a concept that can be harmonized with Bible truth. Consider the following:
<OL type=1>
[*]Jehovah God explicitly declares that no other God existed – either before or after him. Note the testimony of Isaiah –
<BLOCKQUOTE>“. . . efore me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no God” (Isa. 43:10-11).
[*]Eternality is a prime characteristic of one who possesses the nature of deity. God is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psa. 90:2). He is the “high and lofty One who inhabits eternity” (Isa. 57:15). Now, inasmuch as it is clear that the divine Word (Christ – Jn. 1:1, 14) possesses the nature of deity, one must conclude that he is intrinsically eternal.
[*]The Old Testament explicitly declared the eternal nature of the preincarnate Christ. Isaiah refers to the “Prince of Peace” as “everlasting” (9:6). The prophet Micah says that, in reality, the “goings forth” of the Bethlehem baby have been from “of old, from everlasting” (5:2).
[*]The New Testament is equally clear in this matter. Three times in John 1:1 the apostle employs the imperfect tense verb <I>en</I> (rendered “was”) to denote the “timeless existence” of the sacred person known as the Word. The eternal existence of the preincarnate antedates “the beginning,” to which John alludes, in this passage.
[*]Jesus himself affirmed his eternal existence, when he said to the Jews: “Before Abraham was born, I am” (Jn. 8:58). The present tense form, <I>ego eimi</I> (“I am”) stands in contrast to the aorist form “was born” (<I>genesthai</I> - to begin to be, to come into existence). The two expressions contrast the eternal and the temporal. The Jews certainly caught the drift of what Christ was saying, i.e., that he was claiming eternality, therefore, the status of being God. That is why they sought to stone him. The expression “I am” points one back to Exodus 3:14, where Jehovah identifies himself as the “I AM,” i.e., the <I>self-existent</I> One.
[*]In the book of Revelation, Jesus claims that he is “the first and the last, and the Living [present participle – <I>always</I> living] one” (1:17-18). He is also the “Alpha and the Omega” – first and last letters in the Greek alphabet (22:13; cf. 1:8; 21:6). These phrases assert the eternal nature of the One so described, and are applied in these texts to either God, the Father, or to Christ.
[/list]

It is not biblical, therefore, to assert that the second Person of the Godhead had a “beginning” in any way.


&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;




&nbsp;

Holy Spirit
He speaks, hears, resists, wills, guides
Acts 5:3-4 HS is called God
John 16:13 Hears and guides into all truths
&nbsp;1 Tim 4:1; Acts 10:19-20&nbsp; HS speaks
&nbsp;John 14:26 HS teaches
Acts 16: 6-7 HS forbids
&nbsp;1Cort 12:11 HS wills
&nbsp;Eph 4:30 HS can be grieved
Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the HS.
Acts 13:2 HS says separate to ME Barnabas and Saul
Rom 15:19 Power behind the signs
Mat 12:31 Do not blasphemy the HS

You will notice in Acts 5:3-4 that the HS spirit is refered to as God.&nbsp;

John 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

First I want you to notice the use of the word HE. This within itself show that the HS is a being. Notice that he will guide and speak. It says that he will not speak on his own authority which implies that he could speak on his own as one having his own will.

I'm not going to go over all the verses above. I'm just going to point out a few of them. Like 1Cor 12:11 clearly shows that the HS has a will. And Eph 4:30 shows that he can be grieved, once again showing that he is a being and not just some active force.

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

This verse shows clearly that the HS is a person. The HS is talking and says separate to ME. Notice how he refers to himself as ME.&nbsp; How do you get around such strong evidence as this?

&nbsp;

Now lets talk about the kingdom/ church. The JW claim that the kingdom/church began in 1914. I will quickly show why this just simply is not true. The Kingdom/church began at the day of Petacost. Notice this outline.

Mark 9:1 Says that some standing their would not die until the seen the kingdom come with power.
Luke 24:49 The apostles are to wait for the power from on high.
Acts 1:8 They are going to receive the power. Then they receive it Acts 2:1-4
Note carefully these points:
a. The kingdom and the power were to come together.
b. The power and the Spirit were to come together.
c. The Spirit came at Pentecost
Therefore the kingdom came at Pentecost.
&nbsp;Col 1:2;13 says they are conveyed or transferred (past tense)&nbsp; into the kingdom.
Rev 1:9 John declares that he was in the kingdom then.
The kingdom and the church are entered the same way. Jn 3:5 1cort 12:13
Matt 16:18-19 church and kingdom of heaven used interchangeably.
Heb 12:28 receiving (receivng is present active not future)&nbsp;a kingdom
1 Thess. 2:12 who calleth you into his own kingdom and glory
Rom. 14:17 "For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking"

My main goal is to keep this simple and not make it to long. It is easy to see from my outline here that the church and the kingdom are one in same thing. According to Mark 9:1 there is no way the kingdom came in 1914 unless some of those standing there in the 1st century were still alive in 1914. I don't think you would try and argue that point. Again, I am just pointing out a few of these. In Col 1:13 notice that they were already in the kingdom. If I need to elobrate on anything just ask, but it is very clear from this simple outline.

Lets look at another verse that the JW view. Mat 24:34 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Correct me if I am wrong but the JW will tell you that this generation is talking about the the generation of 1914 according to one of their creed books. No where in this text will you find that date. Jesus here was telling his apostels what was going to happen to Jeruselem before that generation passed away. Then when you get into verse 35 Jesus starts answer their question what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age? Just read it and you will see the warning that would only apply to Jeruslem. If you want me to expound on this just let me know and I will.

I would also like to point out this verse real quick Mat 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Again correct me if I am wrong, but the JW do not belive that the word has been taught to the whole world. But the bible tells us that around 62AD when the book of Col was written that it had in fact been taught to every creature. col 1:23

Several question I would like you to answer please.

Do you not recognize Russel and Rutherford and the WatchTower as false prophets? Just read my previous post on all the perdictions these 3 have made that have never came to pass. Can you explain why their perdiction were wrong and why they keep changing their dates and views?

In one of your creed books it says that some people that were living in 1914 will still be alive when The final comming of Jesus occurs. I did the math and if someone was born in 1913 they would currently be 89 years old. That perdiction is also rapidly running out of time. How do you justify this? Or have they already redefined what generation means? Why do they think they know when the Second Comming will occur when Jesus himself was on the earth did not know when it would happen?

&nbsp;


&nbsp;

Hi Cougan.

In what sense in the phrase "Firstborn" is Jesus "Born"

LB I thought that I already covered that in my previous post. Lets use Col 1:15 for an example.
First, the Greek word for "firstborn" is prototokos. It does not mean "first-created" There is a Greek word for that concept proto-ktistos, but it is not used here. The term prototokos, as used of Christ in this context, expresses the Lords priorty to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born.

Second it becomes very clear that Jesus was not part of the creation since the very next verse states that he created all things. This should clearly point out that he did not create himself nor was he created becasue he himself created everything.

Third we read in Psalm 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. You see this verse is used in the future tense. Even the JW would agree that Christ was already in existence at this time. So you should be able to clearly see that Firstborn here does not mean a literal origin and can be used in a sense that is not chronological.

Fourth, Adam Clarke has observed that the Jews even referred to Jehovah, the Father, as the "firstborn of all the world" signifying his role as a Creator (Commentary, VI, P. 516) No one would suggest that this indicates that the Father was created.

I hope this answers your question.

Priorty to, and preeminence over, creation does not rule out his being the first created.

The verses you use at At Col 1:15 should read "all other things" similar to the rendering at Luke 11: 41,42.

This would be in agreement with Proverbs 8: 12,13; 22-31. "12 were as wisdom personified God's son says “I, wisdom, I have resided with shrewdness and I find even the knowledge of thinking abilities. 13 The fear of the LORD means the hating of bad. Self-exaltation and pride and the bad way and the perverse mouth I have hated. 22 “The LORD himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25 Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26 when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men."

This too is in agreement with Rev 3: 14 where Jesus is described as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Re 3:14).

Jesus himself refuted the idea that he was the creator when he made the statements at Mark 10:5-6 "However, from [the] beginning of creation ‘He made them male and female."


And Matthew "In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female".

Who is the "He" refered to here, clearly Jesus was not refering to himself.

It is patentently obvious from Phl 2: 2-12 that Jesus never considered himself equal to God where it reads "If, then, there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any sharing of spirit, if any tender affections and compassions, make my joy full in that YOU are of the same mind and have the same love, being joined together in soul, holding the one thought in mind, doing nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind considering that the others are superior to YOU, keeping an eye, not in personal interest upon just YOUR own matters, but also in personal interest upon those of the others.&nbsp; Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.&nbsp; No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.&nbsp; More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.&nbsp; For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

We are encouraged here to have the same mental attitude as Christ and consider others better than ourselves of which he is given as the prime example as one who was once in God's form but even as such considered God superior to himself.&nbsp; Because of this humble attitude God exalted him to a superior position than he had before.