Debunking false claims about Jehovah's Witnesses. 1-14

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The "Me" came into existence as this aspect became something more than an aspect, but became something separate to the extent of being a distinct individual.

thats called creation JM, jesus was the "beginning of all creation" remember?

[6] "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word."
"gavest me"?

Jesus is saying, "Now I am their God".

not quite. "thy name" means "your name", not "my name". jesus is saying that he has represented god, he has shown them who god is by his works. but then he makes the point that god gave him these people. they were god's but now they are jesus'.if jesus was god, this sentence is pointless

[8] "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me."

Jesus "came out" from God.

we as christians are sent by jesus, does this mean we "come out" from jesus?

Jesus presented to them the true God, as His representative.

but that's the point. representative.

Only Jesus can, as a part of god, enter into the very presence of God, and so he does but in the form of a man to represent us before God, just as he represented God to us.

revelation depicts cherubs and 24 elders in GOD's presence "before the throne" does this mean they are a part of god?

Jesus was under submission to God and maintained the ability to keep that status through adversity.

yet this point escapes the notice of trinitarians.

Jesus being also God, himself (The Word was the same as God, from our perspective) allowed him to be a perfect vessel to hold all the truth of God within him.

sorry, that makes no sense

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by miriam0566
wow... so the thief made it to heaven before jesus did, and jesus was STILL call the firstborn of the dead..
amazing

They went together. Jesus said, "you will be with me".

Thanks,
TT

so at what point was jesus dead for 3 days? because from what your saying, jesus and the thief were in heaven that day and very much alive apparently.

Originally posted by holywar
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I guess you don't understand Jesus' response to them. To put it in other words, Jesus was saying something like:

"you guys are having a fit because I call myself THE SON OF GOD, and yet God himself had no problem calling you (the judges) "gods"????.

Get it?

He corrected them... he did NOT agree with them!

No you are blatantly misquoting the verse to make you point.: " God himself had no problem calling you (the judges) "gods"????. "


That's not what the text says, you are imposing your opinion on it.

The verse says

"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—" (Jn 10:35)

The plain meaning of the text says they are not humans. Its says "gods" אֱלֹהִים - elohiym.

In Psalm 82 God says;

"I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”" (Ps 82:6-7)

Common sense dictates if they were men then God would not need to tell them that "like men you shall die".

Sorry but when the plain sense makes sense - seek no other sense. You are simply pounding square pegs into round hole to prop up a bad interpretation based on improper exegesis.










[edit on 6/22/2009 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by texastig
Guess what Jesus said:
Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Thanks,
TT

and yet paul said "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

so jesus didnt inherit the kingdom?

Originally posted by miriam0566

so at what point was jesus dead for 3 days? because from what your saying, jesus and the thief were in heaven that day and very much alive apparently.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? It seems like it...

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The verse says

"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—" (Jn 10:35)

The plain meaning of the text says they are not humans. Its says "gods" אֱלֹהִים - elohiym.

In Psalm 82 God says;

"I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”" (Ps 82:6-7)

Common sense dictates if they were men then God would not need to tell them that "like men you shall die".

umm no..

[1] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
[2] How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

these are judges that are appointed by god, but are not judging correctly...

unless you are suggesting that god's angels dont know what they are doing, your assumption makes no sense.

[6] I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
[7] But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

the reference to dying shows that even though they are given great titles and responsibilities, they are still human and die "like men"

jesus sheds further like on their identity by saying "to whom the word of God came".

these "gods" are the judges and older men of israel. they are able to condemn law breakers to death (something usually reserved for god)

i dont know where you got psalm 82 as not referring to humans i think rabbinical tradition even disagrees with you.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by miriam0566

so at what point was jesus dead for 3 days? because from what your saying, jesus and the thief were in heaven that day and very much alive apparently.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? It seems like it...

no, im putting out the obvious contradictions that come up when you misplace a comma that was never there.

Originally posted by miriam0566


no, im putting out the obvious contradictions that come up when you misplace a comma that was never there.

"And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”" (Lk 23:43)

How's that?

Originally posted by miriam0566

umm no..

[1] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
[2] How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

these are judges that are appointed by god, but are not judging correctly...

unless you are suggesting that god's angels dont know what they are doing, your assumption makes no sense.

Yes that is the entire point. They are fallen angels mistreating the nations they were assigned. After the tower of Babel God divided up the nations amongst the fallen angels.

The ESV corrected the translation of Dt 32:8 to reflect the actual Hebrew.

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." (Dt 32:8)

sons of God = elohim = angels

The angel Gabriel made reference to the "prince of the kingdom of Persia" - a human could not battle an angel like Gabriel for 21 days. So much so that another angel Michael had to come assist him no less.

"The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia," (Da 10:13)

The Bible teaches that Satan is the god of this age.Satan and his angels are in control of the earth for now. God is speaking of their impending judgment in the divine council of Psalm 82 - (note it clearly says DIVINE council)



[edit on 6/22/2009 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

"And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”" (Lk 23:43)

How's that?

because in greek, there is no comma. that being so, the scripture can be rendered 2 ways.

1 - "i say to you today, you will be with me in paradise" or
2 - "i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise"

the 2 have very different meanings.

number 2 - makes more sense in general. john 11:24 showed that marths listened to jesus and was aware that the resurrection would occur in the "last day" (john 6:40). this "last day" was not jesus' death. the apostles spoke of it as something yet to come. (2 peter 3:3; 2 tim 3:1)

jesus was also to be dead for 3 days. (matt 12:40; mark 8:31) "in the heart of the earth" ≠ "paradise"

also jesus was to be raised "first" since he is called "firstborn of the dead" (col 1:18)

to assume that number 1 is the correct translation is to call jesus a liar. because jesus was not in paradise with the thief THAT exact day. he couldnt have been because the scriptures say he was dead. (eccl 5:9,10) and that the thief wouldnt be raised until the last day.

it is pure assumption that the comma in BEFORE "today" instead of after. and assumption that calls jesus a liar

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The Bible teaches that Satan is the god of this age.Satan and his angels are in control of the earth for now. God is speaking of their impending judgment in the divine council of Psalm 82 - (note it clearly says DIVINE council)

im not suggesting that it is immpossible for angels to be called god's.

im saying "to whom the word of God came" could NOT be fallen angels.

1 kings 12:22] But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

1 chron 17:[3] And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,

the demons do not recieve the word of god. jesus was confirming the rabbinical belief that 82 was referring to those of leadership in israel

reply to post by miriam0566


No they are not demons - they are angels, demons were never angels. Fallen angels and demons are two different entities entirely. The plain meaning of the text is they are angels. Elohim never means humans.

www.thedivinecouncil.com...

"And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”" (Lk 23:43)

4594 σήμερον [semeron /say·mer·on/] adv. Neuter (as adverb) of a presumed compound of the art. 3588 and 2250, on the (i.e. this) day (or night current or just passed); TDNT 7:269; TDNTA 1024; GK 4958; 41 occurrences; AV translates as “this day” 22 times, “to day” 18 times, and “this + 3588” once. 1 this (very) day). 2 what has happened today.

His words "this day" would be pointless and unnecessary if he didn't mean to indicate when he would be with him. The plain meaning is that he would be with him in paradise that very day. Your objection from punctuation is really weak.




[edit on 6/22/2009 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by miriam0566

they were god's but now they are jesus'.if jesus was god, this sentence is pointless

John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
Here was a profession of belief from Martha. She called him Lord and Christ and the Son of God.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. (θεός [qeos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim)
Isn't that what Jesus is, an Elohim?
θεὸς is the exact same word that is used in John 1:1 where it says the word was God, or alternately translated, the word was a god, or elohim.

Why should Jesus not be our God, or maybe a god who God has given us into the safekeeping of? And if so, is it not right to call him our God?
We know there is a God in Heaven who Christ sits next to, on His throne. Do we make God not a god by having a god in Jesus?

Originally posted by texastig
“It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’"

this quote is so absurd.

that fact he actually conflicts his own statments, it shows just how biased their opinion is

"Most Christian translators render it “and the Word was God” because they believe that Jesus is equal to God."
Where's the evidence for that?

go to school, study koine greek and you will get your answer.

thats what i did

Prove it. I want you to produce evidence where he said it or wrote it.

if mantey knows koine greek, then he knows that John 1:1 can be rendered "a god". your blind acceptance of a scholars opinion shows i cant prove much else anyway.

but since you insist.

"The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." William's translation is, "the Word was God Himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have."

julius mantey and the new world translation
in laymans terms... it CAN be translated this way, but it translators dont.
but, mantey is not paying attention. "the Word was deity.", "the Word was divine." are considerably different from "the Word was God Himself." yet he says that each of these translations "reflects the dominant idea in the Greek"
which one? im not convinced mantey even knows.

Originally posted by miriam0566
if im in the room, do you need a sign to show you? or do you just look at me?
if jesus' presence is literal and physical, why would his disciples need a sign?

No. They wouldn't need a sign. But I think your trying to make a argument for the jw's seeing Jesus invisibly. The Bible states that every eye shall see Him and He comes with clouds. Rev 1:7

and yet there they are in matthew asking for a sign. and jesus is there giving them a sign. rev 1:7 doesnt use "παρουσιας" instead its "ερχεται" which can mean - accompany, appear, bring, come, enter, fall out, go, grow, light, next, pass, resort, be set.

matthew 24 uses "παρουσιας" which means presence.

the 2 scriptures are referring to separate things. there is a presence of christ, and an arrival amoung the clouds.

I guess I need to get to know you if you don't mind. Were you brought up in a church? If so, which one? If not, where did you get your beliefs at?

i lived in morocco for many of my young years. i was taught to read from a bible i had stolen from a church. when i was a teenager i was taken in by a priest in New york where i learned just how "christlike" the church was. i studied english, greek and a little hebrew when i was there.

i was a very bitter person and my motivation for studying the bible was to know "why".

some years after i began to give up and i prayed. the very next day, jw's knocked on my door and gave me a pamphlet that answered the exact question i had all my life. i figured it was more than coincidence and decided to listen to what they had to say.

i studied some years and am impressed by their adherence to the scriptures. it angers me to no end when people call them "satanic" or when they claim that they make up doctrine. of all the religions i have seen in my life, i have no doubt they got it "right".

im not a JW for reasons of my own. but threads like these are convincing me that i should become one.

god's organization would treat god's word with respect, they would not "make it fit their beliefs". they would let the bible dictate doctrine. they would take jesus commandment to preach seriously. and i have yet to see an organization "love one another" the way they do.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No they are not demons - they are angels, demons were never angels. Fallen angels and demons are two different entities entirely.

come again?

which bible are you using?

angels that sin are demons, why would god make something evil like demons?

The plain meaning of the text is they are angels. Elohim never means humans.

and yet, you are skipping the law. nowhere in the bible does it say that angel received the law. nor does it say that angels judge israel

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
His words "this day" would be pointless and unnecessary if he didn't mean to indicate when he would be with him. The plain meaning is that he would be with him in paradise that very day. Your objection from punctuation is really weak.

lol, so your saying jesus lied.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Why should Jesus not be our God, or maybe a god who God has given us into the safekeeping of? And if so, is it not right to call him our God?
We know there is a God in Heaven who Christ sits next to, on His throne. Do we make God not a god by having a god in Jesus?

the point i was making wasnt jesus not being "a god". its that he is separate from god. the ownership went from one to another. not from himself to himself

reply to post by miriam0566

the point i was making wasnt jesus not being "a god". its that he is separate from god. the ownership went from one to another. not from himself to himself

That is what is meant, to say that Jesus was sent, is that it is a separation. As in to part company.
It is slightly disturbing to read the Athanasian Creed and find out that Jesus was fully God in a way that meant that he existed as long as the Father, and was equal with the Father. That the only "begetting" that ever happened was when it involved Mary. Kind of a strange concept to me, that a God would give birth to a son who had always been around and was his equal in every way.
Let me mention something else that I commented on earlier. You are right about the "separate" thing and I was looking for other things to comment on in the verses you quoted. One was the "come out" thing. There are forty two variations on the root word for come out in the Greek used in the New Testament. The one that is used in that verse comes up in twenty six different verses. Each one of the verses use it in the most literal way, as in "came out of the house", "The angels came out of the temple in heaven." "I came out of Macedonia."
So, to be in conformity with all the other verses that use that exact form of the word, you would have to think Jesus meant just what it looks like he said. So what does that mean that Jesus "came out of God"? I suppose that to you, it would mean God created him. I might call it something else, like begotten. But that word is in the same verse, right? First begotten of creation. OK, so if you say "created" well it does not have to be completely inaccurate if he was created from inside God. Now Adam was created out of stuff already created and just formed by God. Jesus could not have been created that way, since nothing had yet been created. So if you were to say that God created Jesus from himself, or something coming out of himself, that would be acceptable, it seems to me. The other choice would be if Jesus was created out of nothing, then that would not qualify as being begotten, to me.


[edit on 22-6-2009 by jmdewey60]