The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Yeah which god?

Yourself? other Men? scholars? Maybe Allah?

None of those versions you listed are verifiably accurate and none of them were whole and complete copies.

Why not Just trust the LORD, God Almighty?

Chester, why are you deliberately ignoring the facts and calling it a virtue?

Obviously the BC Hebrew and Aramaic texts, whole or not, say what they say.

And they say Sons of God. There is no saying that the Septuagint was corrupt because we HAVE PROOF it wasn't.

Please remember that a man who was a Prophet, a King and a Priest said that the Lord would preserve his words to every generation. As expounded on in an earlier post I gave the reason a for the AV being that God preserved word of God to this generation.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Are you willing to admit that Jesus has a God as I see the AV teaching?

a reply to: whereislogic

No. Because Jesus as God incarnate could and did call God his father and still be God himself. Not everyone understands hypostatic Union how God can be in heaven and on earth in bodily form, how he can be God and man at the same time (which Jesus was).

not many would understand that to him he has always had a body (Angle of God in the OT) and that at a certain time in the 24/7 he became flesh. I had a lot of debates with my professors in college they believe he is omnipresent which could mean he had his body in our 24/7 past and later was born when they denied God could have that body in the OT past because Jesus wasn't born until later. What they came up with to settle their hearts is OT incarnation of Christ but not the same incarnation. So they have God being incarnated two different times. I simply believe time is not a concept for him, he is in the past, preset and future all at once that is why he could have his boy in the OT time ad be born at a later time.

BTW, I had one of my professors contact me and said that for many years he had thought over the whole concept of God's omnipotence allowing him to have the boy of Jesus in the past, present and future all at once.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You just said God promised to preserve his word for EVERY generation.

Contradicting yourself because until 1200 AD roughly no Bible existed saying "sons of Israel" AND you said the Septuagint was corrupted.

Corrupted or preserved for every generation can't co exist so which is it?

And do you deny God preserved the DSS?

Maybe he wanted to settle the issue.

You admitted to corruption of the Septuagint and thus admitted non preservation for all time.

Have you ever heard of logic or rationality?

I think not.

Because Jesus died in 33 AD roughly, the KJV is 1611.

Do the math Chester, 1611-33= 1551 years without the "Authorized" (By a degenerate King) version.

You are joking right?


Further, the Sons of God were 70 in #, one per nation like the Bible says there were, following Cannanite El(God) and Asherah (wife of God) mythology.

The sons of Israel were 12.

We know there were more than 12 nations because the Bible says so.

Therefore sons of Israel makes no sense.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Are you willing to admit that Jesus has a God as I see the AV teaching?

Jesus says "My God"

That's not deniable.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Then there is only one rational conclusion I can draw from your claims regarding the KJ/AV in comparison to your teachings in comparison to the bible (including the KJ/AV) and the reliability and usefulness of the quotation of Jesus quoting Isaiah that I brought up in my comment at the end of the previous page. The reality is that you simply ignore what the AV is teaching whenever it contradicts your own personal theosophies (that you have been taught by people doing the same thing and passing on their theosophies to the next generation).

Ephesians 1:3a (AV or KJV):

Blessed be the God ... of our Lord Jesus Christ,...

Crystal clear. As is Jesus quotation of Isaiah speaking for Jehovah. And I only left out "and Father" to make sure the "hearer" won't get distracted with red herrings explaining Trinitarian philosophy to distract from that clarity.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Then there is only one rational conclusion I can draw from your claims regarding the KJ/AV in comparison to your teachings in comparison to the bible (including the KJ/AV) and the reliability and usefulness of the quotation of Jesus quoting Isaiah that I brought up in my comment at the end of the previous page. The reality is that you simply ignore what the AV is teaching whenever it contradicts your own personal theosophies (that you have been taught by people doing the same thing and passing on their theosophies to the next generation).

I may have underestimated you. You are actually pretty smart, for a JW (JK).

Ephesians 1:3a (AV or KJV):

Blessed be the God ... of our Lord Jesus Christ,...

Crystal clear. As is Jesus quotation of Isaiah speaking for Jehovah. And I only left out "and Father" to make sure the "hearer" won't get distracted with red herrings explaining Trinitarian philosophy to distract from that clarity.

Why don't you guys use the original Yahweh?

And seriously, how many JW's are there?

I know it's more than 144,000 and that that passage is about the 12 tribes, not revealing how many spots there are in Heaven. I think that is just to get everyone competitive about pleasing God buy pleasing your leaders?

Or are you not a JW and just didn't know that video was from them? Well you have the JW translation so I don't think it is too presumptuous, more of an observation.

Anyway, come on, that verse has nothing to do with the amount of people going to Heaven because a preset number eliminates perfectly good people from going even though they followed Jesus and Jesus promised the Kingdom of God.

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Are you willing to admit that Jesus has a God as I see the AV teaching?

Jesus says "My God"

That's not deniable.

There's always a way to make things less clear apparently to some people...

Be on your guard:

For there are many rebellious men, profitless talkers, and deceivers, especially those who adhere to the circumcision. 11 It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: “Creʹtans are always liars, injurious wild beasts, idle gluttons.”

13 This witness is true. For this very reason, keep on reproving them with severity so that they may be healthy in the faith, 14 paying no attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 All things are clean to clean people; but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They publicly declare that they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort. (Titus 1:10-16)

Eccl.1:9:

What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.

Romans 3:1-5:

What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God. 3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”

A Book You Can Trust—Part 1: Awake!—2010

a reply to: whereislogic

Why does Hebrews 1:6 not say "let all the angels of Him worship Him?" Why does it make a distinction between "Him" and "God"? Why should we read your Trinitarian or Binitarian philosophical interpretation into what it really says or simply ignore that this distinction is being made with those in mind as if it's no big deal and the verses you added commentary about are more important?

You have asked - Quote “Why does Hebrews 1:6 not say "let all the angels of Him worship Him?" Why does it make a distinction between "Him" and "God"? Why should we read your Trinitarian or Binitarian philosophical interpretation into what it really says or simply ignore that this distinction is being made with those in mind as if it's no big deal and the verses you added commentary about are more important? ” Unquote—

Here is what Hebrews 1:6 tells us in the majority of bibles.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he
saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Here is my understanding of the same Hebrews !:6

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when (The Most High) bringeth in Jesus into the world
(The Most High) saith, And let all the angels of the “Word” worship Jesus.

Now you are right in that I used Jesus instead of the “Word” and that would confuse my interpretation. I do apologize for that mistake.

Here in Hebrews 1:6 “The Most High El.” brings His “Word” from the celestial realm to the terrestrial realm to be known as the terrestrial Jesus. At this point the terrestrial Jesus is conceived in the womb of the terrestrial woman and being in the womb was not privy to worship anyone or anything. Jesus was a fetus at this point and was being transformed by natural means into this terrestrial realm. Now in the celestial realm it was not allowed for any of the creation to worship anything or anyone except “The Most High” and the “Word” was the “Most High.” In understanding that Jesus would become terrestrial, He was still the “Word” in Spirit. So being the “Word” it was still proper For the angels who Jesus created to worship Him as a terrestrial Jesus.

The celestial creation did not understand how the “Word” could become terrestrial substance. “The Most High EL.” told them that it was proper to worship His image in both Celestial and Terrestrial substance. Both God and man have two portions of existence and you cannot separate the two portions because they are both one portion each. This is very confusing to all of us and if you do not agree with my interpretation then that is alright. I don’t expect but a very few to agree with me and I do not get angry because someone disagrees with me.

Now I did not mention trinity at all and I do not know where you get that I have postulated a triune Godhead. Although I do not agree with many understandings of the trinity, I do not deny the Holy Spirit. But again that is alright with me also. I do not understand the conception of Spirit as an entity and I don’t understand how there can be two Holy Spirits. But then again I also do not comprehend what Spirit is. Whether an entity or a unknown force is way beyond my understanding and is the main reason I do not discuss it very much.

Now your second objection of my interpretation was Hebrews 1:9. You ask “Did Jesus anoint Himself?”

No He did not anoint Himself.

Here is Hebrews 1:9 as in most bibles ---

Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,
even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Here was my interpretation of Hebrews 1:9 ------ I have tried to make it more clear

Hebrews 1:9
Jesus hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore Jesus, even thy Most
High God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

You may be confused as to my intention. Return to the original biblical verses and compare my
Interpretation with the bible verses. In that you will see two distinct uses for the word God.
That would be the Most High God EL and Jesus as the Creator God. The intent is to show that
the biblical scriptures are teaching that there is a Creator God who is the “Word” and the
supreme God who is The Most High God.

Alright, let us discuss Hebrews 1:8 and compare it with Psalms 45:6 – Actually we can compare Hebrews 1:8,9 with Psalms 45:6,7 as both are confirmation of the same.

Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

My translation would be
Hebrews 1:8
But unto Jesus, the Most High saith, Thy throne, O Jesus, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 1:8 has confirmed that the Creator is God (the “Word”) who became the Begotten Son of the Most High whom we know as Jesus. Unbeknown to those of King David’s era they had no conception of the “Word” of the Most High as being their Creator. Their conception of the Creator was that He was the Most High EL.. We now know (by Faith) that the Most High did not create but His image the “Word”: is the Creator. Timotheus ,in Hebrews, shows this by calling the Son Jesus as God the Creator.

I wanted you to know that I am not brow beating you and I am not selling you anything. All I am doing is showing you the way that my understanding is compared to most other people. I understand that you are entitled to your interpretation as well as everyone else is also entitled to their own belief and that is alright with me. That does not make you my enemy in any sense of reasoning.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Sorry but no contradiction.

Visit Will Kenny's page he is a great apologist for the arguments you are trying to draw me into. Just google it or 'brandplucked" it will lead you to his KKJV only page I don't agree with him on everything.

He and I know each other personally.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Are you willing to admit that Jesus has a God as I see the AV teaching?

Jesus says "My God"

That's not deniable.

There's always a way to make things less clear apparently to some people...

Be on your guard:

For there are many rebellious men, profitless talkers, and deceivers, especially those who adhere to the circumcision. 11 It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: “Creʹtans are always liars, injurious wild beasts, idle gluttons.”

You do realize he is talking about the apostles, right? Circumcision faction is one of the derisive terms he uses against them including but not limited to false apostles of Christ, ministers of Satan, etc.

Just saying, that verse is full of hate and not a good example of humility. Paul seems to have an inferiority complex saying he is not the least bit inferior to the chiefest apostle prior to the false prophet remark.

How does a smart guy like you reconcile that? Most people pretend he meant Jews but he means Nazarene Jews who kept circumcision without imposing it so his anger is unfounded, it's thier choice, he just wanted to malign them because they were two different movements entirely and not the united group of common folklore.

It's not even theoretical, scholars are well aware and much has been said in modern times as people are reading the Bible and finding out what nobody will tell them.

13 This witness is true. For this very reason, keep on reproving them with severity so that they may be healthy in the faith, 14 paying no attention to Jewish fables and commandments

Here he is dumping on the Old Testament, not to mention telling people to be intolerant or "reprove them with severity" which is basically harassment.

What does anyone see in Paul?

Why don't Christians realize he's a hypocrite and apostate, admitted liar?

of men who turn away from the truth. 15 All things are clean to clean people; but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They publicly declare that they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort. (Titus 1:10-16)

Paul says works, he means works of the law or Torah, the law of Moses, the foundation of the both faiths today so he lost that battle as those fables are believed to be true stories today.

Not approved for good work?

So we know that they were doing good works and Paul is obsessed with faith not works to the point he insults people who do so and profess faith.

Vein man...
"Faith without works is dead." (James)

Eccl.1:9:

What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.

That's just dreary. And so ambiguous as to be true sometimes and others not.

New things definitely exist under the sun. They didn't have NASA in Paul's day or before.

New.

a reply to: Seede
I mentioned the term "Trinitarian philosophy" and added "Binitarian" to that in an edit because I anticipated you making an issue out of that and imply things that I didn't say about that subject while you explain and teach your Trinitarian and Binitarian philosophy that is clearly recognizable to me. The philosophies and some base concepts you teach are both a part of Binitarianism (which is what you are focussing on when talking about Jesus and God) as well as Trinitarianism.

Your behaviour regarding Hebrews chapter 1 also seems to be not much different then that of ChesterJohn.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Sorry but no contradiction.

Visit Will Kenny's page he is a great apologist for the arguments you are trying to draw me into. Just google it or 'brandplucked" it will lead you to his KKJV only page I don't agree with him on everything.

He and I know each other personally.

I don't need an interpreter to tell me some sophist nonsense when I already know what it says and just said it.

Why pass the buck if no contradiction? Explain it yourself, I don't care about some guy, I can read.

He called them false apostles of Christ, I brought up several issues, you addressed none just denying it and saying ask "Kenny" something, when I know how to read and conduct research and probably know more than him.

It's a book, you read it and absorb the details.

"No contradiction" doesn't qualify as a rebuttal.

a reply to: whereislogic

And I was not trying to draw you into an argument as you say, I commented on your quotes regarding how Paul was insulting the apostles which just true. Corinthians 11:5-13 he calls them Satan's servants and false apostles.

I merely asked how you reconcile the obvious hatred of Paul for the apostles with following his letters as the word of God.

Aren't the apostles good?

Then Paul can not be, as he is the antagonist at all times and they were chosen by Jesus.

Paul just said he got secret revelations which had been prophesied by Jesus would happen and to "...Not believe them."

And he reiterates it again they have been warned.

Romans rescued Paul and he was never seen again after suffering a humiliation by having to prove his allegiance to the Law of Moses and shave his head.

He is whisked away by an unbelievable amount of soldiers and places his faith in Nero to save him and the story ends.

He writes his letters and probably enjoyed a long cozy life in Rome, even his imprisonment was like house arrest.

His mythical death is just that.

The reason his letters don't contain anything like what Jesus taught, or what he taught, is because Paul never met Jesus.

The reason they contradict Jesus is because he made everything up. Faith without works is the crux of his message against the teachings of James from Jesus and of Peter, also from Jesus, because he didn't have anything better and it's what everyone wants to hear.

All you have to do to go to Heaven is believe Paul that a confession of faith is sufficient that you believe Jesus died for your sins as a human sacrifice.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
Don't get so hung up on the word "circumcision" and miss the point about behavioural patterns and Eccl.1:9 (and the previous verses I quoted on page 10 using the phrase "uncircumcised in hearts and ears" in case you do get hung up on that word).

Proverbs 8:5

You inexperienced ones, learn shrewdness;
You stupid ones, acquire an understanding heart.

Matthew 13:13-15

That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
Don't get so hung up on the word "circumcision" and miss the point about behavioural patterns and Eccl.1:9 (and the previous verses I quoted on page 10 using the phrase "uncircumcised in hearts and ears" in case you do get hung up on that word).

I am not hung up on circumcision, Paul was, and he hated the apostles and called them the circumcision faction derogatorily as your quote also shows.

It's the insulting of the apostles I am "hung up on."

Proverbs 8:5

You inexperienced ones, learn shrewdness;
You stupid ones, acquire an understanding heart.

I don't think you are trying to address the issue I brought up and are being dodgy because the alternative is to acknowledge the fact, Paul wrote against the apostles and called them Satan's servants.

What is so difficult about sticking to the issue?

I just wanted to know how you reconcile the conflict that Paul started and his hatred of the apostles with him supposedly being an apostle, though self appointed and not acknowledged by Jerusalem.

He also has no corroborated testimony from eye witnesses to his secret revelations, red flag being insufficient to describe how much of a warning that is that he is lying.

The Bible even says witnesses are required for anything to be taken as fact like talking to a dead man who had changed direction posthumously from good deeds and Heaven on earth to just believe that I died for your sins, never part of the plan in the Gospels.

How much more obvious does it honestly get?

a reply to: whereislogic

You aren't addressing the issue, I'm not blind .

If anything that Matthew verse you added is perfect for you at this point, you are in vein shutting your eyes to the problem and selecting random quotes.

Try Matthew 24

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

you are in vein shutting your eyes to the problem and selecting random quotes.

Excuse me for interrupting...
the above:

you are in vein has an entirely different meaning than the alternative
you are, in vain. Please clarify. Sorry for the unseemly pedantry. THanks in advance for explaining.

a reply to: whereislogic

Your behaviour regarding Hebrews chapter 1 also seems to be not much different then that of ChesterJohn.

Thank you for that compliment.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

you are in vein shutting your eyes to the problem and selecting random quotes.

Excuse me for interrupting...
the above:

you are in vein has an entirely different meaning than the alternative
you are, in vain. Please clarify. Sorry for the unseemly pedantry. THanks in advance for explaining.

I think you are being a grammar nazi, that is my explanation and I type how I talk, there was no error as I would not have paused and my meaning was clear and would be if spoken.

A pause or command would not change the meaning anyway only the way spoken and read. There would be a pause but it would still be in vein.

I know how to use a command properly. That should be a given for any literate person.