Taking it out of context?

[elman]

=Ratiocination;35028723]Ok, do you believe that Jesus's fleshly example on earth was just an image? Or, was it an example of perfect human existence?

I think Jesus came in the flesh. Ultimately however the flesh is nothing and the spirit is everything. We will be with God who is spirit, meaning not flesh.

Why not? What a waste of time! why not just create more angels?

I think God created us to be able to love and be loved by Him. The result is beings who He can love and who are capable of loving Him back. The physical is passing away. It is the spiritual that is eternal.

 

[Logicalthinker]

I think Jesus came in the flesh. Ultimately however the flesh is nothing and the spirit is everything. We will be with God who is spirit, meaning not flesh.


I think God created us to be able to love and be loved by Him. The result is beings who He can love and who are capable of loving Him back. The physical is passing away. It is the spiritual that is eternal.

What about all the verses about the Resurrection, New earth, and all flesh shall worship him that are in the bible.

Why do you think they are in the bible if they are not a real thing?

Do you think the scriptures about those things are not important?

Why would they be in the bible?

Were they just filling space?

 

[Ratiocination]

I think Jesus came in the flesh. Ultimately however the flesh is nothing and the spirit is everything. We will be with God who is spirit, meaning not flesh.

Do you think that Jesus' flesh was nothing?

I think God created us to be able to love

As he did the angels

and be loved by Him.

As he did the angels

The result is beings who He can love and who are capable of loving Him back.

Sound like angels

The physical is passing away. It is the spiritual that is eternal.

Again... why not just create more angels?
Why is the physical passing away?
What's wrong with the physical?
You said God could have made physical beings in perfect obiedence, why is he not doing this in this case?

Alot of questions need to be answered if we down tools and follow you elman, can you answer these questions? or are we to just trust what you're saying is true, thats a heavy responsibillity elman if you're wrong, you would have to explain to God why you and your followers were so mislead.

Logic.......

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
I think Jesus came in the flesh. Ultimately however the flesh is nothing and the spirit is everything. We will be with God who is spirit, meaning not flesh.

Do you think that Jesus' flesh was nothing?

I think Jesus' words and spirit are everything. His flesh is no longer in existence. It was something when He existed, but not now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
I think God created us to be able to love

As he did the angels

Quote:
and be loved by Him.

As he did the angels

And what is your point?
Quote:
The result is beings who He can love and who are capable of loving Him back.

Sound like angels

Jesus did say we would be like the angels in heaven, not being married or given in marriage.
Quote:
The physical is passing away. It is the spiritual that is eternal.

Again... why not just create more angels?

Maybe He felt myrids of angels were enough or maybe in creating us He did create more angels.

Why is the physical passing away?

Because it was created to pass away.

What's wrong with the physical?

Many things but mostly it is passing away.

You said God could have made physical beings in perfect obiedence, why is he not doing this in this case?

I don't know. Why would he do that?

Alot of questions need to be answered if we down tools and follow you elman, can you answer these questions? or are we to just trust what you're saying is true, thats a heavy responsibillity elman if you're wrong, you would have to explain to God why you and your followers were so mislead.

God will forgive us for being wrong on theology. What we may not be able to get forgiven for is not loving others. If we are to be forgiven for not loving it will be because we love others and that covers a multitude of sins. We are all wrong on theology. James 3:2 We all make many mistakes in theology. That includes me and you and Paul and John and James and Peter. The only one not included in that statment is Jesus. All the popes of all times are also included in that "we". All groups of men and coucils are also included.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I think Jesus' words and spirit are everything. His flesh is no longer in existence. It was something when He existed, but not now.

PMFJIH, but exactly what do you base your theology about Jesus on? I say this because of His own words when He appeared to the disciples in Luke 24 and they were frightened, thinking they had seen a ghost:

"Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (38-39)

 

[StudentoftheWord]

PMFJIH, but exactly what do you base your theology about Jesus on? I say this because of His own words when He appeared to the disciples in Luke 24 and they were frightened, thinking they had seen a ghost:

"Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (38-39)

This is a huge example of taking things out of context.

 

[Rev Wayne]

This is a huge example of taking things out of context.

Just because someone cites only one particular statement to make a point, does not make the point automatically "out of context." In fact the phrase "out of context" indicates that something is used in a way that is inconsistent with its actual meaning, or is applied incorrectly to another context. Unless you can elaborate and show exactly how you feel I have done so, in order that I may either see my error and concede it to be so, or defend what I have said with other supporting evidence, then perhaps it would be best to refrain from critical comments altogether.

As it stands, you have simply expressed an opinion. Would you care to elaborate further?

 

[StudentoftheWord]

Now are you saying I took your opinion out of context?

 

[elman]

=Logicalthinker;35031073]What about all the verses about the Resurrection, New earth, and all flesh shall worship him that are in the bible.

I don't think the new heaven and new earth is going to be a literal physical earth and heaven is where God is and God is spirit so heaven now or later is not going to be a physical place.

Why do you think they are in the bible if they are not a real thing?

Something being symbolic of something else does not make it not real. Spiritual reality is still real and in fact it may be more real than physical reality.

Do you think the scriptures about those things are not important?

I think it is not important that these things be physical.

Why would they be in the bible?

To teach spiritual truth.

 

[elman]

PMFJIH, but exactly what do you base your theology about Jesus on? I say this because of His own words when He appeared to the disciples in Luke 24 and they were frightened, thinking they had seen a ghost:

"Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (38-39)

That was my comment and it is not clear exactly what kind of body Jesus had. He told Mary not to touch Him because He was being glorified. He was able to go through walls but he could still invite Thomas to touch Him and He still ate fish. It is also not clear what kind of body Jesus continued to have as He disappeared, but Paul said flesh and blood was not part of the Kingdom so I would assume He did not continue to be flesh as He joined His Heavenly father who is not flesh, but spirit.

 

[Logicalthinker]

I don't think the new heaven and new earth is going to be a literal physical earth and heaven is where God is and God is spirit so heaven now or later is not going to be a physical place.

The bible does talk about it as a real thing. No where does it seem metaphoric. There is even two resurrections. the first and second. Plus scripture say that all Flesh will worship him. Flesh and blood can not go to heaven.

Isaiah 66:22-23 22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

He says he will make a new heaven and earth., "I will make" shall remain before him. This does not seem metaphoric.

Now notice I highlighted flesh.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Well how can all flesh come to worship before him if we are all in heaven where flesh can not go.

Something being symbolic of something else does not make it not real. Spiritual reality is still real and in fact it may be more real than physical reality.

All the verses on the resurrection, New Heaven and New earth, do not sound metaphoric. Why even say a new earth. There is just to many verses to think it is not real.

What is the metaphor of the new earth, what does it mean than? Why even say something like that if there is no earth.

Plus we were warned that it would not be taught. Hello, It is not being taught.

look at this verse again

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

We were warned false religions would preach against the resurrection.

is not important that these things be physical.


To teach spiritual truth.

It is important. It is denying scripture to think that anything in the bible is not important. Plus how can you have spiritual truth if you think some of the bible is not important.

If a religion contradicts the bible it is not the bible wrong.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
I don't think the new heaven and new earth is going to be a literal physical earth and heaven is where God is and God is spirit so heaven now or later is not going to be a physical place.

The bible does talk about it as a real thing. No where does it seem metaphoric. There is even two resurrections. the first and second. Plus scripture say that all Flesh will worship him. Flesh and blood can not go to heaven.

Isaiah 66:22-23 22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

He says he will make a new heaven and earth., "I will make" shall remain before him. This does not seem metaphoric.

It seems symbolic to me of spiritual matters. Is Heaven a physical place? Is the new Heaven going to be a physical place? I don't think so.

Now notice I highlighted flesh.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Well how can all flesh come to worship before him if we are all in heaven where flesh can not go.

In this case it is I think a general reference to humans as a whole and it is tied to the new earth which I also think is a spiritual thing, not a physical thing. I think what Paul says is literally true. I think what Isaiah says is symbolic of what is literally true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Something being symbolic of something else does not make it not real. Spiritual reality is still real and in fact it may be more real than physical reality.

All the verses on the resurrection, New Heaven and New earth, do not sound metaphoric. Why even say a new earth. There is just to many verses to think it is not real.

Something does not have to be physical to abe real. What I really think is being said with the phrase New Heaven and New Earth is the relationship between God(Heaven) and Man(earth). To say therefore that the old Heaven and Earth will be done away and replaced with the New Heaven and New Earth would be saying our relationship with God in this world is not going to be the same as our relationship with God in the next World. There our relationship with Him will be new and better.

Plus we were warned that it would not be taught. Hello, It is not being taught.

What is not being taught?

look at this verse again

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

We were warned false religions would preach against the resurrection.

I am not preaching against the resurrection. I am preaching against your view of the resurrection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
is not important that these things be physical.


To teach spiritual truth.

It is important. It is denying scripture to think that anything in the bible is not important. Plus how can you have spiritual truth if you think some of the bible is not important.

If a religion contradicts the bible it is not the bible wrong.

The Bible can be wrong and is wrong in places. We are to worship the word of God not the Bible or a book written by men. The word of God is Jesus. The Bible is writting of men. Some of it is inspired by God and some of it is not. We are called to use the mind God gave us to decide what is true and what is not true and we are not to rely on any man, or group of men for truth. There are no theologically perfect men nor are there any theologically perfect churches. James 3:2---which is inspired by God and is literally true. That verse says we all make many mistakes in our theology.

 

[Ratiocination]

I think Jesus' words and spirit are everything. His flesh is no longer in existence. It was something when He existed, but not now.

Actually that flesh today is the only reason that you and I are permitted to live on this planet or anywhere in God’s creation!

Maybe He felt myrids of angels were enough or maybe in creating us He did create more angels.

This is the point I wanted you to think about… Why go round and round the houses by creating man just so that he can create more angels

Why is the physical passing away

Because it was created to pass away.

Why?

You said God could have made physical beings in perfect obiedence, why is he not doing this in this case?

Why would he do that?

Because he can as you have conceded.

God will forgive us for being wrong on theology.

Not if you are not humble enough to accept correction when shown clear scriptural guidance. The bible was written in a very cleaver way, it checks the heart and intention of every man to see if they are acceptable. Humility is the gold the bible searches for.

Much love.

 

[Rev Wayne]

PMFJIH, but exactly what do you base your theology about Jesus on? I say this because of His own words when He appeared to the disciples in Luke 24 and they were frightened, thinking they had seen a ghost:

"Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (38-39)

That was my comment and it is not clear exactly what kind of body Jesus had. He told Mary not to touch Him because He was being glorified. He was able to go through walls but he could still invite Thomas to touch Him and He still ate fish. It is also not clear what kind of body Jesus continued to have as He disappeared, but Paul said flesh and blood was not part of the Kingdom so I would assume He did not continue to be flesh as He joined His Heavenly father who is not flesh, but spirit.

All I know is, this was post-resurrection, and He Himself called it "flesh and bone." I have to assume if Jesus was calling it flesh, even though it exhibited some qualities that we know to be beyond the capabilities of flesh, then we ought to accept His witness over our own finite understanding. The trustworthiness of the witness in this case is undeniable.

Of course, the denial might be raised, and you seem to hint at it, that perhaps since He had not at that point "ascended to His Father," the qualities exhibited within His body might have changed after that ascent. Fact is, we are not certain what is meant by the ascent He speaks of. We're not even certain of exactly when this ascent was. The account you refer to, of Mary "clinging," is in John, who has Jesus appearing to the disciples "on the same day," but without Thomas; and then appearing eight days later WITH Thomas, and then "after these things," an indefinite time frame, appearing by the sea and eating fish.

Luke' gospel, on the other hand, has Jesus appearing to two disciples on the Emmaus Road "that same day" (of the Resurrecton), going to their house with them, and vanishing; and they "rose up the same hour" and went to Jerusalem where they found the other disciples rejoicing, and they told of seeing Him on the road to Emmaus; and "as they said these things," Jesus appeared (the "flesh and bone" appearance); they still didn't believe, so He asked for food and ate broiled fish and honeycomb; then He says a few more things to them, leads them out as far as Bethany, and ascends. They returned and were "continually in the temple, praising and blessing God."

Yet Luke turns right around and mentions Jesus appearing to people over a period of 40 days after that, in his introductory words in the Book of Acts. During that time, he says, Jesus presented Himself "by many infallible proofs." If the proofs were "infallible, one has to assume they were the same as they required of Him when He ate fish and honeycomb. And this would have been after the ascent spoken of in Luke 24:51.

I submit, then, that Jesus had within His glorified resurrection body, the capabilty of exhibiting qualities of either the realm of th physical or the spiritual, at will. "Ascending to the Father" does not seem to negate this capability, for He seems to have ascended to the Father soon after He was first seen by the disciples. Either that, or He had the capability of transcending any barrier between the two realms of His existence. The church witnesses to Him being "truly God and truly man," so He was a Being of both spirit and physical realms, whose very existence was transcendent.

 

[Logicalthinker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
I don't think the new heaven and new earth is going to be a literal physical earth and heaven is where God is and God is spirit so heaven now or later is not going to be a physical place.

It seems symbolic to me of spiritual matters. Is Heaven a physical place? Is the new Heaven going to be a physical place? I don't think so.

In this case it is I think a general reference to humans as a whole and it is tied to the new earth which I also think is a spiritual thing, not a physical thing. I think what Paul says is literally true. I think what Isaiah says is symbolic of what is literally true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Something being symbolic of something else does not make it not real. Spiritual reality is still real and in fact it may be more real than physical reality.

Something does not have to be physical to abe real. What I really think is being said with the phrase New Heaven and New Earth is the relationship between God(Heaven) and Man(earth). To say therefore that the old Heaven and Earth will be done away and replaced with the New Heaven and New Earth would be saying our relationship with God in this world is not going to be the same as our relationship with God in the next World. There our relationship with Him will be new and better.


What is not being taught?



I am not preaching against the resurrection. I am preaching against your view of the resurrection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
is not important that these things be physical.


To teach spiritual truth.

The Bible can be wrong and is wrong in places. We are to worship the word of God not the Bible or a book written by men. The word of God is Jesus. The Bible is writting of men. Some of it is inspired by God and some of it is not. We are called to use the mind God gave us to decide what is true and what is not true and we are not to rely on any man, or group of men for truth. There are no theologically perfect men nor are there any theologically perfect churches. James 3:2---which is inspired by God and is literally true. That verse says we all make many mistakes in our theology.

Isaiah 45:18 18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

That would go for a new Earth.

Yes I agree that heaven is a spiritual place where spirit beings live. Earth is a place where humans live.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Notice that Jesus says we will be as angels. Not Angels. As angels, the angels of God in heaven. Why not just say , But are Angels of God in heaven.


So you think that when everyone dies and God brings us back as Angels That we will live in a spiritual Earth.

Why not just be done with Earth if it is not physical and everyone lives in Heaven. Heaven is where spirit beings live.

Why not just make a New Heaven. Earth would be unimportant if we we're all spiritual beings.

In the verse of Isaiah ( Isaiah 66:22-23 22) that I listed above clearly shows that all flesh will worship him in the new earth. If their is no flesh their wouldn't even be a point to make a New Earth because everyone would just live in the New Heaven. Plus the verse talks about the moon rising and falling and the sun rising and falling. If we are Angels living in heaven those things would not govern us.

So if we are all turned into Angels and the new heaven and New Earth are just spiritual places.
Why does God still separate us?
Why even signify two separate places for his Angels?
Why wouldn't his Angels live together with him?



I agree that our life with Jehovah and Jesus will be far better than we can imagine. I still think that we will be resurrected in flesh and blood. There is to many verses that say this. It mentions flesh in the new Earth so I know it is not a spirit earth. It is a physical Earth. Plus God said the Earth would never pass away.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Forever. Not a little bit. Forever.

He did not make the Earth in Vain.

What is not being taught?

The resurrection. I was born a Catholic/Baptist. My mother was Catholic and my father was a Baptist. I have been to both churches a lot, Plus others (presbyterian, Nazarene, protestants, and Methodists.) But mainly the first two. None of these churches I have been to in my 33 years of life. I have never heard of the Resurrection mentioned in these churches. Never. Not even a little.

All my life my Grandma told me to remember that Jesus is not God. She spent most of her life proving this and has lots of documentation to prove what she was talking about. I did not find this stuff until she passed away. But she is absolutely right.
Than one day some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door. I would usually shew them off. Rudely sometimes. Calling them a cult and telling them they didn't know what they were talking about. I was much older at this time and felt it was my job to be hospitable and invited them in. They started showing me stuff from the watchtower, I told them no. I would only read the bible. They were fine with that. They showed me that they did not believe that Jesus was God. I thought to myself Wow! They believe what I believe. But than they started talking about this resurrection. I ended up telling them they were full of crap and kicked them out of my house. But it boiled in my blood. So I went to my King James Version and looked up the resurrection. I was shocked. Why was this never mentioned to me from all the spiritual leaders I have talked to through the years. Why was this never mentioned?

Than you find verses that say people that won't teach the resurrection, does not have faith. They preach in vain.

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

If they don't teach of the resurrection of the dead. Than they preach in vain.

So I am happy to say that I study sometimes with JW's. They speak the truth if people will just sit and listen for a minute. Be humble to the servants of God. You don't have to follow if you don't like it. But I see a lot of lies about them. They use only the bible as their doctrine. Nothing else. Don't be lied to. Go investigate them for yourselves. They don't hook you up to a brainwash machine. You still have freewill and if you want out just tell them. You are not obligated by just testing the water. People would be greatly shocked. Because the lies about them are totally unfounded.

Like I've stated before. If a religion contradicts the word of God it is a false religion. Not a little false. The whole thing is garbage. It's like building a wall. At the base you might be a 1/8 in. lean. But as the wall starts to go up that 1/8 in keeps making the wall lean farther out. Soon the wall is leaning so far out it collapses. It may seem like only a 1/8 in at the bottom but by the top it could be a foot leaning. I lie in the church for hundreds of years have done the same thing. It started out little and has only grown to lean more. So if a religion has one false doctrine in it. That means there is more. So just throw that religion away and start fresh using only the bible. The word of God.

 

[Rev Wayne]

So I am happy to say that I study sometimes with JW's. They speak the truth if people will just sit and listen for a minute. Be humble to the servants of God. You don't have to follow if you don't like it. But I see a lot of lies about them. They use only the bible as their doctrine. Nothing else. Don't be lied to. Go investigate them for yourselves. They don't hook you up to a brainwash machine. You still have freewill and if you want out just tell them. You are not obligated by just testing the water. People would be greatly shocked. Because the lies about them are totally unfounded.

Let me agree with you to an extent, by that I mean, I took a new look at the JW's when a couple of them came to my house and I conversed with them a bit and was given a copy of "Awake!" and a copy of the "Watchtower." Upon reading it (with a grain of salt the whole time), I was amazed to find that, for the most part, there was very little there that I would have considered different than my own beliefs. The only exception I found was the emphasis they put on the "ransom theory" of the atonement (to me, "ransom" implies that Satan had some claim over us and Jesus' death was a payment to Satan to buy our way out of hell).

As I thought about this, I really was not that surprised, though, for I've held for some time that "cults" and "fringe" groups have a tendency over time to move toward the mainstream of Christian thinking. A case in point would be the Worldwide Church of God, formerly headed by Herbert W. Armstrong. In 1997, after Armstrong's death, and after many years of moving away from their cult leanings, the group announced, very publicly, that they were going on record claiming to be evangelical Christians. Everything in their witness and their doctrinal statements indicates that this is so. (Not everyone agreed with the move, and a split occurred, with two much smaller groups breaking away. One maintains all the old beliefs, the other is somewhere between the other two.)
Another example would be the Plymouth Brethren, from which we have received the basic format taught in most churches concerning rapture theory and the endtimes. Out of the Brethren and their teaching arose Scofield and dispensationalism, with doctrines (IMO) as spurious as any put out in all the history of the church. But since his time, Charles Ryrie, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and others have modified the system so that it is nowhere near the fringe in its teaching that it once was.

But I will disagree at a couple of other points. I too have been involved with quite a number of churches, among them the Methodist (which I now profess), Baptist (I married one and was married by a Baptist minister), Nazarene, Wesleyan, Missionary Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of God, Pentecostal, and others, and I have never been in one where the resurrection was not preached and taught. So I disagree with your assessment of other churches concerning the resurrection. I teach it and preach it in my church and I do not know any fellow Methodists who do not. (Of course, that is not intended to deny it to be so anywhere.)

Like I've stated before. If a religion contradicts the word of God it is a false religion. Not a little false. The whole thing is garbage. It's like building a wall. At the base you might be a 1/8 in. lean. But as the wall starts to go up that 1/8 in keeps making the wall lean farther out. Soon the wall is leaning so far out it collapses. It may seem like only a 1/8 in at the bottom but by the top it could be a foot leaning. I lie in the church for hundreds of years have done the same thing. It started out little and has only grown to lean more. So if a religion has one false doctrine in it. That means there is more. So just throw that religion away and start fresh using only the bible. The word of God.

So, building on your own statement, then I must reject another claim you have also made:

All my life my Grandma told me to remember that Jesus is not God. She spent most of her life proving this and has lots of documentation to prove what she was talking about. I did not find this stuff until she passed away. But she is absolutely right.

Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father," and "I and my Father are one."

More directly:

JW's put a lot of emphasis on the idea that Jehovah is God. But they miss a lot of connections to Jesus. For example:

Isaiah 45:23 says:

I have sworn by myself; the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousnss, and shall not return, that to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall take an oath.

Philippians 2:9-11 says:

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Isaiah passage is talking about Jehovah.
The Philippians passage is talking about Jesus.

And they are saying the same identical thing about both of them. There is no way for this to be so unless they are one and the same.

ALSO: Conisider Isaiah 9:6:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is a prediction of the birth of Jesus the Messiah. Notice the term I highlighted in what was said. There is only one in Scripture who is called both "Father" and "everlasting," and that is God. But here we find them both used in a phrase describing Jesus Christ.

There are, of course, many other references, the ones given here are far from being the only ones showing who Jesus is. The JW's, quite frankly, got it wrong, and their error was the direct result of their own New World Translation of the Bible, which is translated in many of its details to support the conclusions they had already made about Jesus.

I find it a real paradox for someone to strongly insist upon teaching the resurrection, and at the same time deny Jesus is the divine Son of God.

 

[Logicalthinker]

Let me agree with you to an extent, by that I mean, I took a new look at the JW's when a couple of them came to my house and I conversed with them a bit and was given a copy of "Awake!" and a copy of the "Watchtower." Upon reading it (with a grain of salt the whole time), I was amazed to find that, for the most part, there was very little there that I would have considered different than my own beliefs. The only exception I found was the emphasis they put on the "ransom theory" of the atonement (to me, "ransom" implies that Satan had some claim over us and Jesus' death was a payment to Satan to buy our way out of hell).

I too have thought about the Ransom sacrifice. I thought it strange that his sacrifice is referred to as a ransom. But after finding and reading about the ransom I feel I understand. The ransom is for our sins. He paid our ransom. It was not a ransom for him or Adam. It was for us. We owed a ransom to God and Jesus paid it for us.

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

But I will disagree at a couple of other points. I too have been involved with quite a number of churches, among them the Methodist (which I now profess), Baptist (I married one and was married by a Baptist minister), Nazarene, Wesleyan, Missionary Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of God, Pentecostal, and others, and I have never been in one where the resurrection was not preached and taught. So I disagree with your assessment of other churches concerning the resurrection. I teach it and preach it in my church and I do not know any fellow Methodists who do not. (Of course, that is not intended to deny it to be so anywhere.)

Being a Reverend you probably have had more experience with doctrine. But I grew up in a small town of 2000 people. I honestly had never heard of the resurrection until I was in my 20's My baptist minister always taught that people die and instantly goes to Heaven or Hell. Never talked about a resurrection of the dead.

Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father," and "I and my Father are one."

I believe he was talking about the same goal. We can see many times where Jesus refers to people having the same goal as one.

Matthew 19:4-6 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

That would be a lot of heads God would have if he meant one as being all in one body.

Notice in the verse below it was ok to call religious leaders gods. But not Jehovah God Almighty. That is why it is so important to keep his name in the bible. A lot less confusion on who is talking.

John 10:30-36 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

JW's put a lot of emphasis on the idea that Jehovah is God. But they miss a lot of connections to Jesus. For example:

Isaiah 45:23 says:

I have sworn by myself; the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousnss, and shall not return, that to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall take an oath.

This is God saying that his word will go out from him. What is the word? (Jesus). It does not say that he himself will go out. But yes every knee shall bow to God because of Jesus. They will also bow to Jesus. He is our king in heaven.

Philippians 2:9-11 says:

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Isaiah passage is talking about Jehovah.
The Philippians passage is talking about Jesus.."

This verse does not show that Jesus is God. It shows that God has exalted him. As his promise was. This verse clearly shows separation of the two. Jesus was given authority over heaven and Earth. Why would God exalt himself? He is already exalted. So how can he be Jesus if he has to exalt himself. That does not make any sense.

ALSO: Conisider Isaiah 9:6:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is a prediction of the birth of Jesus the Messiah. Notice the term I highlighted in what was said. There is only one in Scripture who is called both "Father" and "everlasting," and that is God. But here we find them both used in a phrase describing Jesus Christ..

This is what I was talking about. A contradiction. So this means there is a false religious practice happening here. Let's investigate.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

These two verses are as plain as the nose on someones face. I don't have to try to make it say something that it doesn't. No one has ever seen God. If Jesus was God that would make these verses a lie. That would make John a liar. I don't think John is a liar.

Ephesians 4:4-7 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

This is another verse that show separation. Notice it does not say the Holy ghost anywhere. So where is the third head? There are no verses that show the holy ghost as an individual talking. It is Gods influence.

So the contradiction is still there. Well the bible at this point tells me to get rid of man made doctrine. The trinity is a man made doctrine. So do I believe the doctrine of Christ or the doctrine of man. That is a vary easy choice for me. Throw away the man made crap. Keep the bible. Jesus deserves the titles for what he did and like I pointed out it was not uncommon to consider ministers gods. Plus we can see in John 1:1 where Jesus was referred in this way. Lowercase god. Meaning divine. It still does not make him Jehovah.

1 Tomothy 1:2-3 2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

Notice people are not to teach other doctrines. Only the doctrine of Christ. Notice the separation of the two again. Plus still no holy ghost.

1 Tomothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

Must stick to the doctrine of Christ.

2 John 1:9-10 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

If they don't have the doctrine of Christ they don't have God. Well that says it all. We can see the effects that not following Christs doctrine has. Evil can take a church over. We've seen it happen. Pedophiles everywhere. God exposed the disgusting thing for what it was, disgusting. A false Religion. It is up to us to see the signs.

I find it a real paradox for someone to strongly insist upon teaching the resurrection, and at the same time deny Jesus is the divine Son of God.

Jesus is the divine Son of God, I never said he wasn't. But he is not God. That does not make a paradox. The paradox would be that Jesus is his own father and that he lied to us by saying he was his own son. Why not just tell the truth, that he really was God, instead of lying to people. To believe in the trinity one has to take the stand that Jesus was dishonest with us. I know Jesus or God would never be dishonest. So again follow man or God. Who is telling the truth. I would put my chips on the word of God.

I can believe he is the Son of God which has been given all authority and is the life and the resurrection. That does not contradict the bible. Jesus is the way to everlasting life. If we follow him he will usher us on to the father.

When a contradiction arises. Do you find yourself following the man side of the contradiction or the bible side?

 

[Ratiocination]

I thought i'd add my 2 cents, some of the stuff i've written has already been mentioned by Logicalthinker but i thought i'd post it anyway.

JW's put a lot of emphasis on the idea that Jehovah is God. But they miss a lot of connections to Jesus. For example:

Isaiah 45:23 says:

I have sworn by myself; the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousnss, and shall not return, that to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall take an oath.

Philippians 2:9-11 says:

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

A simple exegesis of biblical text easily lets one arrive at a conclusion similar to yours, yet the bible says we have to dig deep for truth as if digging for treasure.
Notice in Philippians 2:9-11, it says there that God had highly exulted Jesus, a more in-depth and logical conclusion would be that Almighty God cannot be exulted any higher than he already is, therefore this is referring to a lesser being, someone that is capable of being exulted.
Further, why would Christ be GIVEN a name that is above any other, surely he would already have that name wouldn’t he?
Also, why are all these things done to the glory of someone else, namely the Father?

Conclusion, simply put, Jesus had a commission, he was to be the channel that all mankind would approach God the father, and that’s exactly what this verse says, to the glory of God the Father.

Hebrews 1:5 5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”?​

2 Samuel 7:14 14 I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son. When he does wrong, I will also reprove him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of Adam. ​

Note these two verses, they have Solomon and Jesus described using the same wording, are we to conclude that these two are the same person or being?

Revelation 17:14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and the ones with Him are the called and elect and faithful ones.​

This verse is very straight forward in that Jesus is assigned the title “King of kings”. Should we then assume that if another is assigned such a title that this one is Jesus as well? Let us consider the following verse.

Ezekiel 26:7 For so says the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will bring on Tyre from the north, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, a king of kings, with horses and with chariots and with a company of horsemen, even many people.​

We find here that God assigns Nebuchadnezzar the title “King of kings”. Certainly he is not Jesus, and yet we can be certain that if there were those that believed Jesus was Nebuchadnezzar, then this would be one of the main texts used. It really is amazing what you can do with the bible when you start to be inconsistent in your reasoning.

The Isaiah passage is talking about Jehovah.
The Philippians passage is talking about Jesus.

Sure is.

And they are saying the same identical thing about both of them. There is no way for this to be so unless they are one and the same.

So you would be happy to carry on with your consistency and conclude that all others in the scriptures that have names, titles or expressions made against two individuals must be the same person?

ALSO: Conisider Isaiah 9:6:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is a prediction of the birth of Jesus the Messiah. Notice the term I highlighted in what was said. There is only one in Scripture who is called both "Father" and "everlasting," and that is God. But here we find them both used in a phrase describing Jesus Christ.

May I ask if you believe that Jesus was the Father in the trinity, or is Jesus a person of Jehovah as traditional Trinitarians believe? If that’s not what you believe then perhaps you could tell me why Jesus is called Father in this verse.

I find it a real paradox for someone to strongly insist upon teaching the resurrection, and at the same time deny Jesus is the divine Son of God.

JW’s don’t deny the divinity of Jesus, we don’t go as far as Trinitarians go in making Jesus part of a Triune being, because the bible never goes that far!

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elman
I think Jesus' words and spirit are everything. His flesh is no longer in existence. It was something when He existed, but not now.

Actually that flesh today is the only reason that you and I are permitted to live on this planet or anywhere in God’s creation!

Is Jesus in Heaven sitting beside His father on His throne? Is God physical? Is His throne physical? Is Jesus still physical? What does the flesh of Jesus have to do with you and I being permitted to live on this planet?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elman
Maybe He felt myrids of angels were enough or maybe in creating us He did create more angels.

This is the point I wanted you to think about… Why go round and round the houses by creating man just so that he can create more angels

He likes people around Him He can love and who can respond to His love. Why do you think He created us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat
Why is the physical passing away

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Because it was created to pass away.

Why?

Because it is not as important as the spiritual and part of the defintion of physical is it is subject to time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat
You said God could have made physical beings in perfect obiedence, why is he not doing this in this case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Why would he do that?

Because he can as you have conceded.

Just because He can do something does not mean it is a good idea. He can be unloving to us but it is not a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
God will forgive us for being wrong on theology.

Not if you are not humble enough to accept correction when shown clear scriptural guidance.

Did God tell you this directly?

The bible was written in a very cleaver way, it checks the heart and intention of every man to see if they are acceptable. Humility is the gold the bible searches for.

The Bible is simply a book written by men. It searches for nothing. God is the one who checks the heart and the intention of every man to see if they are loving or not.

 

[elman]

All I know is, this was post-resurrection, and He Himself called it "flesh and bone." I have to assume if Jesus was calling it flesh, even though it exhibited some qualities that we know to be beyond the capabilities of flesh, then we ought to accept His witness over our own finite understanding. The trustworthiness of the witness in this case is undeniable.

Of course, the denial might be raised, and you seem to hint at it, that perhaps since He had not at that point "ascended to His Father," the qualities exhibited within His body might have changed after that ascent. Fact is, we are not certain what is meant by the ascent He speaks of. We're not even certain of exactly when this ascent was. The account you refer to, of Mary "clinging," is in John, who has Jesus appearing to the disciples "on the same day," but without Thomas; and then appearing eight days later WITH Thomas, and then "after these things," an indefinite time frame, appearing by the sea and eating fish.

Luke' gospel, on the other hand, has Jesus appearing to two disciples on the Emmaus Road "that same day" (of the Resurrecton), going to their house with them, and vanishing; and they "rose up the same hour" and went to Jerusalem where they found the other disciples rejoicing, and they told of seeing Him on the road to Emmaus; and "as they said these things," Jesus appeared (the "flesh and bone" appearance); they still didn't believe, so He asked for food and ate broiled fish and honeycomb; then He says a few more things to them, leads them out as far as Bethany, and ascends. They returned and were "continually in the temple, praising and blessing God."

Yet Luke turns right around and mentions Jesus appearing to people over a period of 40 days after that, in his introductory words in the Book of Acts. During that time, he says, Jesus presented Himself "by many infallible proofs." If the proofs were "infallible, one has to assume they were the same as they required of Him when He ate fish and honeycomb. And this would have been after the ascent spoken of in Luke 24:51.

I submit, then, that Jesus had within His glorified resurrection body, the capabilty of exhibiting qualities of either the realm of th physical or the spiritual, at will. "Ascending to the Father" does not seem to negate this capability, for He seems to have ascended to the Father soon after He was first seen by the disciples. Either that, or He had the capability of transcending any barrier between the two realms of His existence. The church witnesses to Him being "truly God and truly man," so He was a Being of both spirit and physical realms, whose very existence was transcendent.

I agree Jesus and God both have the ability to be physical anytime they wish. Do you agree they have the ability to be spiritual and not physical anytime they wish? Are you saying Jesus must remain physical at all times?