Discussion with Blackdog on the Divinity of Christ.

RGacky3 · Jan 8, 2013

Continuation from the thread A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true? .

Is Jesus the same as the God of the bible? (i.e. is he Yahweh)

That is when he walked among the people, of course he could not say it directly. The Romans would have arrested him and put him to death ahead of scheduled so to speak. We are talking about before the council, not his death and resurrection.
Nonsense, they were trying to arrest him THE WHOLE TIME; also the Romans didn't care if he said he was God, the cared if he threatened the Roman empire, the Jewish leadership cared if he called himself god, but for them him calling himself the massiah, the son of man, and the son of god was blasphomy enough, from the begining.

He said everything contraversial directly.

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

There he is talking about the Father and him being one in will and purpose.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

In purpose and will ...

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

saying "is in" in greek doesn't imply literalness, as other people say all the time "the christ is in me." Or they act with the backing of the christ.

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Same as about, saying "the father is in me" doesn't imply literalness.

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

Yeah ... the son of God ....

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

Yeah, read it, so that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE, its obvious that it isn't literal there.

John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

And read Jesus' Response to them,

"Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law,* “I said, you are gods”? 35If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. "

Which is exactly the case, in the Hebrew scriptures it refers to others as a "god" meaning powerful and devinely inspired but not the only true God.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Arian theology, and others like it, use colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus was created, as an angel, but not God.

John 17:10 [Speaking to the Father] All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Yeah, and non of these point to Jesus being God.

Colossians 1:15 - Jesus is created,
John 14:28, Matthew 6:9 and countless others - The father is greater than I
Luke 22:42 - Gods will actually distinct.
Mark 13:32 - Knowlege that God has that Jesus does not.
Revelation 1:1 - Jesus recieves the revelation from God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 - After Jesus death and assention to heaven, he is still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 - In heaven, Jesus still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 8:5,6 - Many called a god, but only one God and one Lord (distinct).

I could go on and on, Jesus was very clear that Yahweh was greater than him, and the only true God, and that even after his death he was subject to God.

Black Dog · Jan 8, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Continuation from the thread A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true? .

Is Jesus the same as the God of the bible? (i.e. is he Yahweh)

He said everything contraversial directly.

There he is talking about the Father and him being one in will and purpose.

In purpose and will ...

saying "is in" in greek doesn't imply literalness, as other people say all the time "the christ is in me." Or they act with the backing of the christ.

Same as about, saying "the father is in me" doesn't imply literalness.

Yeah ... the son of God ....

Yeah, read it, so that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE, its obvious that it isn't literal there.

And read Jesus' Response to them,

"Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law,* “I said, you are gods”? 35If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. "

Which is exactly the case, in the Hebrew scriptures it refers to others as a "god" meaning powerful and devinely inspired but not the only true God.

Arian theology, and others like it, use colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus was created, as an angel, but not God.

Yeah, and non of these point to Jesus being God.

Colossians 1:15 - Jesus is created,
John 14:28, Matthew 6:9 and countless others - The father is greater than I
Luke 22:42 - Gods will actually distinct.
Mark 13:32 - Knowlege that God has that Jesus does not.
Revelation 1:1 - Jesus recieves the revelation from God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 - After Jesus death and assention to heaven, he is still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 - In heaven, Jesus still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 8:5,6 - Many called a god, but only one God and one Lord (distinct).

I could go on and on, Jesus was very clear that Yahweh was greater than him, and the only true God, and that even after his death he was subject to God.

Instead of going through them all I am going to point out the changes the Watch Tower made to the Bible to fit there doctrine. I will mark specific one's in red to point them out in your post....

The Watchtower Society errs in its interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 as I have marked. They interpret the word "firstborn" to mean "first-created." However, the firstborn (prototokos) principle in Hebrew culture refers to privilege and superiority, not to priority in time. Also, the Watchtower Society has presumptuously added to its translation of verses 16-20 by parenthetically inserting "other" in several places where no word appears in the Greek text. This unwarranted addition is made so the text will conform to the Watchtower Society's theological position on Christ....

"Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist" (Col. 1:16-17, NWT).

The Watchtower Society's position is similar to the fourth century Arian heresy I mentioned earlier, this was universally rejected at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The Watchtower Society made a number of interpretative errors and translation changes to conform Scripture as I have mentioned above to their presuppositions. For example...

the Watchtower Society's Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), translates John 1:1: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

The Watchtower Society asserts that since the Greek language has no indefinite articles (a or an), the article can be used where needed in translating; thus they insert "a" before god to emphasize the Word's (Christ's) inferiority to God. This biased rendering cannot be justified grammatically and has been rejected by every reputable Greek scholar, period.

Revelation 3:14 (NASB), "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." The NWT renders the clause, "the beginning of the creation by God," which the Watchtower Society says is proof that Jesus was the first created being. This interpretation errs at two points. First, the word rendered "beginning" is the Greek arche, which can also be translated as "source" (New English Bible); "ruler" (New International Version), or "origin" (Good News Bible), thus confirming the orthodox view of Christ's divinity.

The other problem with the Watchtower Society's interpretation of this verse concerns their translation of the clause tou Theou as "by God." The genitive grammatical usage requires "of God," which further suggests that Christ is the prime source or origin of God's creation, not its beginning in time. Other Scriptures also are translated incorrectly or interpreted to fit the Jehovah's Witness' theology. John 8:58 (NASB), where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," is rendered in the NWT as "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." John 14:28 (NASB), in which Jesus states, "The Father is greater than I," is interpreted in the NWT to prove Jesus' inferiority. Christian interpreters contend that the verse refers to the voluntary, temporary subordination of Jesus during His earthly life, not to His divine nature. Titus 2:13 is inaccurately translated in the NWT as "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of (the) Savior of us, Christ Jesus." The verse is rendered correctly by the New American Standard Bible as "looking for . . . our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."

There is no scriptural evidence to equate Michael the archangel with a pre-human Christ. The Watchtower Society's assertion that they are the same person is based on their incorrect assumptions about Christ's creation and misinterpretations of Daniel 10 and 12, Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, none of which identify Michael as Christ, period. Also, theologians contend that Christ was not merely a created being, but eternally preexistence as God the Son with the Father. He was indeed the Creator, with the Father and the Spirit, of all things (see John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20; Rev. 3:14).

Those are just a few, I can keep going with even more changes and purposely misrepresented translations.

Now I know this is only about the divinity question but I must add that the watch tower who supposedly are the only ones who can interpret the Bible according to the religion they follow have been wrong many times. A true profit of God is never wrong, ever. SO they are obviously not the profits they say they are. With that said, I think we can conclude this.

RGacky3 · Jan 8, 2013

Blackdog said:
Instead of going through them all I am going to point out the changes the Watch Tower made to the Bible to fit there doctrine. I will mark specific one's in red to point them out in your post....

The Watchtower Society errs in its interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 as I have marked. They interpret the word "firstborn" to mean "first-created." However, the firstborn (prototokos) principle in Hebrew culture refers to privilege and superiority, not to priority in time. Also, the Watchtower Society has presumptuously added to its translation of verses 16-20 by parenthetically inserting "other" in several places where no word appears in the Greek text. This unwarranted addition is made so the text will conform to the Watchtower Society's theological position on Christ....

"Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist" (Col. 1:16-17, NWT).

The Watchtower Society's position is similar to the fourth century Arian heresy I mentioned earlier, this was universally rejected at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The Watchtower Society made a number of interpretative errors and translation changes to conform Scripture as I have mentioned above to their presuppositions. For example...

the Watchtower Society's Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), translates John 1:1: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

The Watchtower Society asserts that since the Greek language has no indefinite articles (a or an), the article can be used where needed in translating; thus they insert "a" before god to emphasize the Word's (Christ's) inferiority to God. This biased rendering cannot be justified grammatically and has been rejected by every reputable Greek scholar, period.

Revelation 3:14 (NASB), "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." The NWT renders the clause, "the beginning of the creation by God," which the Watchtower Society says is proof that Jesus was the first created being. This interpretation errs at two points. First, the word rendered "beginning" is the Greek arche, which can also be translated as "source" (New English Bible); "ruler" (New International Version), or "origin" (Good News Bible), thus confirming the orthodox view of Christ's divinity.

The other problem with the Watchtower Society's interpretation of this verse concerns their translation of the clause tou Theou as "by God." The genitive grammatical usage requires "of God," which further suggests that Christ is the prime source or origin of God's creation, not its beginning in time. Other Scriptures also are translated incorrectly or interpreted to fit the Jehovah's Witness' theology. John 8:58 (NASB), where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," is rendered in the NWT as "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." John 14:28 (NASB), in which Jesus states, "The Father is greater than I," is interpreted in the NWT to prove Jesus' inferiority. Christian interpreters contend that the verse refers to the voluntary, temporary subordination of Jesus during His earthly life, not to His divine nature. Titus 2:13 is inaccurately translated in the NWT as "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of (the) Savior of us, Christ Jesus." The verse is rendered correctly by the New American Standard Bible as "looking for . . . our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."

There is no scriptural evidence to equate Michael the archangel with a pre-human Christ. The Watchtower Society's assertion that they are the same person is based on their incorrect assumptions about Christ's creation and misinterpretations of Daniel 10 and 12, Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, none of which identify Michael as Christ, period. Also, theologians contend that Christ was not merely a created being, but eternally preexistence as God the Son with the Father. He was indeed the Creator, with the Father and the Spirit, of all things (see John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20; Rev. 3:14).

Those are just a few, I can keep going with even more changes and purposely misrepresented translations.

Now I know this is only about the divinity question but I must add that the watch tower who supposedly are the only ones who can interpret the Bible according to the religion they follow have been wrong many times. A true profit of God is never wrong, ever. SO they are obviously not the profits they say they are. With that said, I think we can conclude this.

I have no interest in defending Watchtower society doctrine, I'm talking about the divinity of christ .... If you want to debate about that we'll debate about that, I'm not in the game of defending specific religious organizations, or specific translations or anything of the sort.

Black Dog · Jan 8, 2013

RGacky3 said:
I have no interest in defending Watchtower society doctrine, I'm talking about the divinity of christ .... If you want to debate about that we'll debate about that, I'm not in the game of defending specific religious organizations.

You are using Watch Tower translations which are inaccurate and purposely changed. I am sorry, if you want to use another translation, any other translation we can proceed. The problem is no other Christian Bible agree's with what you are presenting.

RGacky3 · Jan 8, 2013

Blackdog said:
You are using Watch Tower translations which are inaccurate and purposely changed. I am sorry, if you want to use another translation, any other translation we can proceed. The problem is no other Bible agree's with what you are presenting.

No I am not, the vrs I quoted came from New Revised Standard Version.

Black Dog · Jan 8, 2013

RGacky3 said:
No I am not, the vrs I quoted came from New Revised Standard Version.

Colossians 1:14-16: 14 who forgives our sins and sets us free. 15 Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation. 16 Everything was created by him, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by God’s Son, and everything was made for him.

Pretty self explanatory when seen in context.

I was trying not to go through the whole thing as most of them are like this. Out of context etc.

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Now the verse above. No place does this say anything about will and purpose, not even close. I mean how can this "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." mean in purpose only? That would make little sense by any standard.

I just don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion Jesus was just a man considering what the Bible says?

Not brushing you off will get to the rest later, must sleep.

RGacky3 · Jan 8, 2013

Blackdog said:
Colossians 1:14-16: 14 who forgives our sins and sets us free. 15 Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation. 16 Everything was created by him, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by God’s Son, and everything was made for him.

Pretty self explanatory when seen in context.

I don't know which translation you're using there, I'm using the New Revised Standard version which says

Colossians 1:14-16 said:
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.*
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in* him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.

Yeah, Which is the Arian position, not that he is just a man, but that he was a created angelic creature that took part in the creation. But he is the firstborn of all creation. In the origional greek, it calls Jesus the Image ... not eactly like, and invisable, also it doesn't say "superior to all creation. (look at a transliteration).

I was trying not to go through the whole thing as most of them are like this. Out of context etc.

Blackdog said:
John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Now the verse above. No place does this say anything about will and purpose, not even close. I mean how can this "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." mean in purpose only? That would make little sense by any standard.

I just don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion Jesus was just a man considering what the Bible says?

If you really knew me you would know the father, can be said about many sons, and fathers, i.e. "so and so, is the striking image of his father" or "he's just like is father."

You also have to take it into the context of the rest of the bible, for example all the scriptures showing Gods superiority, and Jesus' distinciton in knowlege, and authority, ifact he says that later on in the Chapter, where he says "the father is greater than I am."

There is no reason to think that Jesus' response here is literal, and was taken to be literal, he could have just said "I am the father," If you look at John it emphasises all the time that Jesus was sent by God and represents God and does the commands of God, so language like this isn't suprising at all, but it doesn't show that he LITERALLY was the father.

Black Dog · Jan 8, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Yeah, Which is the Arian position, not that he is just a man, but that he was a created angelic creature that took part in the creation. But he is the firstborn of all creation. In the origional greek, it calls Jesus the Image ... not eactly like, and invisable, also it doesn't say "superior to all creation. (look at a transliteration).

Wait so you can use JW propaganda but I cannot refute it?? They are the only religious sect that think this is true and I have already debunked this.

You have a choice, reply to this....

The Watchtower Society errs in its interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 as I have marked. They interpret the word "firstborn" to mean "first-created." However, the firstborn (prototokos) principle in Hebrew culture refers to privilege and superiority, not to priority in time. Also, the Watchtower Society has presumptuously added to its translation of verses 16-20 by parenthetically inserting "other" in several places where no word appears in the Greek text. This unwarranted addition is made so the text will conform to the Watchtower Society's theological position on Christ....

"Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist" (Col. 1:16-17, NWT).

The Watchtower Society's position is similar to the fourth century Arian heresy I mentioned earlier, this was universally rejected at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The Watchtower Society made a number of interpretative errors and translation changes to conform Scripture as I have mentioned above to their presuppositions. For example...

the Watchtower Society's Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), translates John 1:1: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

The Watchtower Society asserts that since the Greek language has no indefinite articles (a or an), the article can be used where needed in translating; thus they insert "a" before god to emphasize the Word's (Christ's) inferiority to God. This biased rendering cannot be justified grammatically and has been rejected by every reputable Greek scholar, period.

Revelation 3:14 (NASB), "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." The NWT renders the clause, "the beginning of the creation by God," which the Watchtower Society says is proof that Jesus was the first created being. This interpretation errs at two points. First, the word rendered "beginning" is the Greek arche, which can also be translated as "source" (New English Bible); "ruler" (New International Version), or "origin" (Good News Bible), thus confirming the orthodox view of Christ's divinity.

The other problem with the Watchtower Society's interpretation of this verse concerns their translation of the clause tou Theou as "by God." The genitive grammatical usage requires "of God," which further suggests that Christ is the prime source or origin of God's creation, not its beginning in time. Other Scriptures also are translated incorrectly or interpreted to fit the Jehovah's Witness' theology. John 8:58 (NASB), where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," is rendered in the NWT as "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." John 14:28 (NASB), in which Jesus states, "The Father is greater than I," is interpreted in the NWT to prove Jesus' inferiority. Christian interpreters contend that the verse refers to the voluntary, temporary subordination of Jesus during His earthly life, not to His divine nature. Titus 2:13 is inaccurately translated in the NWT as "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of (the) Savior of us, Christ Jesus." The verse is rendered correctly by the New American Standard Bible as "looking for . . . our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."

There is no scriptural evidence to equate Michael the archangel with a pre-human Christ. The Watchtower Society's assertion that they are the same person is based on their incorrect assumptions about Christ's creation and misinterpretations of Daniel 10 and 12, Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, none of which identify Michael as Christ, period. Also, theologians contend that Christ was not merely a created being, but eternally preexistence as God the Son with the Father. He was indeed the Creator, with the Father and the Spirit, of all things (see John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20; Rev. 3:14).

Those are just a few, I can keep going with even more changes and purposely misrepresented translations.

Now I know this is only about the divinity question but I must add that the watch tower who supposedly are the only ones who can interpret the Bible according to the religion they follow have been wrong many times. A true profit of God is never wrong, ever. So they are obviously not the profits they say they are. With that said, I think we can conclude this.

Or we are done.

head of joaquin · Jan 8, 2013

RGacky3 said:
No I am not, the vrs I quoted came from New Revised Standard Version.

Ouch!

Jesus insists he is the son of God. Paul insists he is. The apostles insist he is. The whole gospel narrative hinges on Jesus being the son of God. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son . . ."

Why did the Nicene Council go off on this bizarre tangent of trinitarianism? What does it add to the gospel message, which is about God giving his son to save the world?

RGacky3 · Jan 9, 2013

Blackdog said:
Wait so you can use JW propaganda but I cannot refute it?? They are the only religious sect that think this is true and I have already debunked this.

You have a choice, reply to this....

The Watchtower Society errs in its interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 as I have marked. They interpret the word "firstborn" to mean "first-created." However, the firstborn (prototokos) principle in Hebrew culture refers to privilege and superiority, not to priority in time. Also, the Watchtower Society has presumptuously added to its translation of verses 16-20 by parenthetically inserting "other" in several places where no word appears in the Greek text. This unwarranted addition is made so the text will conform to the Watchtower Society's theological position on Christ....

"Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist" (Col. 1:16-17, NWT).

I Used the New Revised Standard Version ... NOT the NWT.

The Watchtower Society's position is similar to the fourth century Arian heresy I mentioned earlier, this was universally rejected at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The Watchtower Society made a number of interpretative errors and translation changes to conform Scripture as I have mentioned above to their presuppositions. For example...

the Watchtower Society's Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), translates John 1:1: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

The Watchtower Society asserts that since the Greek language has no indefinite articles (a or an), the article can be used where needed in translating; thus they insert "a" before god to emphasize the Word's (Christ's) inferiority to God. This biased rendering cannot be justified grammatically and has been rejected by every reputable Greek scholar, period.

Revelation 3:14 (NASB), "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." The NWT renders the clause, "the beginning of the creation by God," which the Watchtower Society says is proof that Jesus was the first created being. This interpretation errs at two points. First, the word rendered "beginning" is the Greek arche, which can also be translated as "source" (New English Bible); "ruler" (New International Version), or "origin" (Good News Bible), thus confirming the orthodox view of Christ's divinity.

The other problem with the Watchtower Society's interpretation of this verse concerns their translation of the clause tou Theou as "by God." The genitive grammatical usage requires "of God," which further suggests that Christ is the prime source or origin of God's creation, not its beginning in time. Other Scriptures also are translated incorrectly or interpreted to fit the Jehovah's Witness' theology. John 8:58 (NASB), where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," is rendered in the NWT as "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." John 14:28 (NASB), in which Jesus states, "The Father is greater than I," is interpreted in the NWT to prove Jesus' inferiority. Christian interpreters contend that the verse refers to the voluntary, temporary subordination of Jesus during His earthly life, not to His divine nature. Titus 2:13 is inaccurately translated in the NWT as "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of (the) Savior of us, Christ Jesus." The verse is rendered correctly by the New American Standard Bible as "looking for . . . our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."

There is no scriptural evidence to equate Michael the archangel with a pre-human Christ. The Watchtower Society's assertion that they are the same person is based on their incorrect assumptions about Christ's creation and misinterpretations of Daniel 10 and 12, Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, none of which identify Michael as Christ, period. Also, theologians contend that Christ was not merely a created being, but eternally preexistence as God the Son with the Father. He was indeed the Creator, with the Father and the Spirit, of all things (see John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20; Rev. 3:14).

Those are just a few, I can keep going with even more changes and purposely misrepresented translations.

Now I know this is only about the divinity question but I must add that the watch tower who supposedly are the only ones who can interpret the Bible according to the religion they follow have been wrong many times. A true profit of God is never wrong, ever. So they are obviously not the profits they say they are. With that said, I think we can conclude this.

Or we are done.

No we are not done, because I have not once use the NWT I've used the New Revised Standard Version, so all of this is a nonsense Red Herring.

Please deal with the stuff I actually wrote.

RGacky3 · Jan 9, 2013

head of joaquin said:
Ouch!

Jesus insists he is the son of God. Paul insists he is. The apostles insist he is. The whole gospel narrative hinges on Jesus being the son of God. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son . . ."

Why did the Nicene Council go off on this bizarre tangent of trinitarianism? What does it add to the gospel message, which is about God giving his son to save the world?

1. I don't think Constantine ever really became a christian, he was still sacraficing to Roman Gods, and still doing things that were obviously unchristian, (being emperor of a war mongering oppressive empire).

2. I think the idea of the divinity of Christ was genuine, but maybe partially the motivation was to seperate it from being a Jewish sect.

As far as blackdogs scriptural criticism of a translation of a bible I havn't once quoted, and thus havn't relied upon AT ALL for my arugment, (you gotta deal with the scriptures I actually quoted).

John 1:1. in Greek
En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.

“[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.”[4] Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as "...and the Word was divine."

You're wrong that "a God" is universally by Greek Scholars, some reject it, some do it, but a better traslation might be "divine." So that verse, John 1:1 doesn't show the trinity. Which is why the it is the word was with THE Theon, and theos was the word.

The rest have nothing really to do with my argument so I see no need to defend something I havn't proposed, again, you're just posting up strawmen.

Black Dog · Jan 9, 2013

RGacky3 said:
I Used the New Revised Standard Version ... NOT the NWT.

No we are not done, because I have not once use the NWT I've used the New Revised Standard Version, so all of this is a nonsense Red Herring.

Please deal with the stuff I actually wrote.

You are using or making unaccepted interpretations that only JW's use, no other Christian church uses them, period. It is nothing more than an old JW trick, not debate. You can use there interpretation of scripture, but I cannot point out how flawed it is using there own source. Sorry not going to float.

Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us ... And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God ..."). Jehovah is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only one God (1Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?

In Jn 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?

Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself.

The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11,45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk 2:11, Phil 3:20, Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2Pet 1:1, 2:20, 3:18, etc.)?

If Christ was created by God and was the wisdom of God (Prov 8:1-4, 12, 22-31), then before Jesus would have been created, God would have had to have been without wisdom. How is it possible that God could have ever been without wisdom?

RGacky3 said:
Continuation from the thread A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true? .

Is Jesus the same as the God of the bible? (i.e. is he Yahweh)

Yes

RGacky3 said:
He said everything contraversial directly.

Not true at all. He made a few that were in parables. He was direct when asked directly.

RGacky3 said:
There he is talking about the Father and him being one in will and purpose.

Says you? The literal translation disagrees.

RGacky3 said:
In purpose and will ...

Nothing you have posted contradicts the literal translation.

RGacky3 said:
saying "is in" in greek doesn't imply literalness, as other people say all the time "the christ is in me." Or they act with the backing of the christ.

Cross referenced with other section of the NT, that does not wring true...

In Mt 1:23, who is Matthew referring to here that has been given the name which means "With Us Is God"?

RGacky3 said:
Same as about, saying "the father is in me" doesn't imply literalness.

According again to who? Certainly not the accepted teaching of any Christian church?

RGacky3 said:
Yeah ... the son of God ....

Considering a trinity, that makes perfect sense.

RGacky3 said:
Yeah, read it, so that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE, its obvious that it isn't literal there.

According to who? No Christian theologian or even Jewish denominations who follow Jesus.

RGacky3 said:
And read Jesus' Response to them,

"Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law,* “I said, you are gods”? 35If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. "

Ummm I don't think this makes any differnece at all to the implications of the initial statement. I think that;s a stretch at best.

RGacky3 said:
Which is exactly the case, in the Hebrew scriptures it refers to others as a "god" meaning powerful and devinely inspired but not the only true God.

According to who?

RGacky3 said:
Arian theology, and others like it, use colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus was created, as an angel, but not God.

And they would be wrong. There is no scriptural evidence to equate Michael the archangel with a pre-human Christ. The assertion that they are the same person is based on an incorrect assumptions about Christ's creation and misinterpretations of Daniel 10 and 12, Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, none of which identify Michael as Christ, period. Also, theologians contend that Christ was not merely a created being, but eternally preexistence as God the Son with the Father. He was indeed the Creator, with the Father and the Spirit, of all things (see John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20; Rev. 3:14).

RGacky3 said:
Yeah, and non of these point to Jesus being God.

Colossians 1:15 - Jesus is created,
John 14:28, Matthew 6:9 and countless others - The father is greater than I
Luke 22:42 - Gods will actually distinct.
Mark 13:32 - Knowlege that God has that Jesus does not.
Revelation 1:1 - Jesus recieves the revelation from God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 - After Jesus death and assention to heaven, he is still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 - In heaven, Jesus still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 8:5,6 - Many called a god, but only one God and one Lord (distinct).

According to who???? Because if it is the Watch Tower, I have already pointed out how wrong they are with made up translations etc. So who is this according to? Your opinion will not cut it.

RGacky3 said:
I could go on and on, Jesus was very clear that Yahweh was greater than him, and the only true God, and that even after his death he was subject to God.

And I could go on and on showing that they are one and the same without changing scripture or using false unaccepted translations.

RGacky3 · Jan 9, 2013

Blackdog said:
You are using or making unaccepted interpretations that only JW's use, no other Christian church uses them, period. It is nothing more than an old JW trick, not debate. You can use there interpretation of scripture, but I cannot point out how flawed it is using there own source. Sorry not going to float.

I'm not using any JW source, arguments from authority don't work, instead of just bashing a source which I'm not using, deal with the actual arguments.

Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us ... And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God ..."). Jehovah is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only one God (1Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?

Find my a Jewish theologan that says that the Messiah is actually prophesied to be Yahweh using that scripture, none of them interprate that scripture that way, again, god is not a term ONLY used for Yahweh, moses is refered to as god.

No Jew was expecting that the messiah would be the almighty god.

In Jn 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?

1. Jesus didn't say that, Thomas did,
2. Jesus did'nt say he was God, he refered to himself as the son of god.
3. Again god is not ALWAYS refering to Yahweh

Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself.

The same in Colossians 1, it obviously is saying that all things other than him.

Also when you take into context the rest of the bible, its obvious that he isn't refering to himself as the almighty god.

The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11,45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk 2:11, Phil 3:20, Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2Pet 1:1, 2:20, 3:18, etc.)?

If Christ was created by God and was the wisdom of God (Prov 8:1-4, 12, 22-31), then before Jesus would have been created, God would have had to have been without wisdom. How is it possible that God could have ever been without wisdom?

Of coarse for the Isrealites and Jews God was the only savior ... the messiah hadn't come yet, and given that Jesus was sent by God, it's consistant.

Not true at all. He made a few that were in parables. He was direct when asked directly.

He didn't give parables out of fear, or to hide the truth.

Says you? The literal translation disagrees.

Nothing you have posted contradicts the literal translation.

If you take the literal translation to mean physically the same, and in union, then youd have to admit that the apostles were all equally God as well ... which is rediculous.

Cross referenced with other section of the NT, that does not wring true...

In Mt 1:23, who is Matthew referring to here that has been given the name which means "With Us Is God"?

Look at people's names in the old testiment, almost all of them reference yahweh or eloheim, i.e. god, that's extremely common.

According again to who? Certainly not the accepted teaching of any Christian church?

So I guess all christians who said "Christ is in me" are saying they are actually God also?

Considering a trinity, that makes perfect sense.

The Trinity doesn't make sense, saying "son of God" is logically incompatible with being God.

According to who? No Christian theologian or even Jewish denominations who follow Jesus.

Jews that follow Jesus ARE christians.
And again, its just logical, "just as we are one" would mean, (according to your logic) that the apostles are also God.

Ummm I don't think this makes any differnece at all to the implications of the initial statement. I think that;s a stretch at best.

its not a strech at all, look what he wrote, he was saying that he WAS NOT GOD and they were mistaken, explaining that other people were called gods.

According to who?

I'm not using appeal to authority here, only logic and scripture.

And they would be wrong. There is no scriptural evidence to equate Michael the archangel with a pre-human Christ. The assertion that they are the same person is based on an incorrect assumptions about Christ's creation and misinterpretations of Daniel 10 and 12, Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, none of which identify Michael as Christ, period. Also, theologians contend that Christ was not merely a created being, but eternally preexistence as God the Son with the Father. He was indeed the Creator, with the Father and the Spirit, of all things (see John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20; Rev. 3:14).

Did not argue that Jesus was Michael did I?

According to who???? Because if it is the Watch Tower, I have already pointed out how wrong they are with made up translations etc. So who is this according to? Your opinion will not cut it.

According to logic, reason and scripture, againt stop making red herrings and strawmen, stop trying to make this about appeals to authority, lets look at the verses. (new international version)

John 14:28,
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Matthew 20:23
Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

Mark 13:32
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

+all the scriptures where he says he is Gods son and sent by God

Obviously they are different, not equal, different in authority, different in knowlege.

Now either Jesus was a giant dick, lying to all his apostles about his true nature, OR he was telling the truth and he was Gods son and not equal to God.

Revelation 1:1
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Jesus RECIEVES the revelation from God (after he's in heaven).

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

After Jesus is in heaven with God, he is still subject to God.

1 Corinthians 15:27,28
For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

God gives Christ authority, but not over God, and then Christ gives it back to God, obviously they are 2 seperate beings with different authority ... again after Jesus is in heaven.

(btw, does this verse saying God being all in all, mean that Spinoza was right and everything is God? Or is it, as it obviously is, not physical and literal.)

None of these scriptures rely on some interpretation, its pretty damn obvious what they are saying.

Black Dog · Jan 9, 2013

RGacky3 said:
I'm not using any JW source, arguments from authority don't work, instead of just bashing a source which I'm not using, deal with the actual arguments.

So far you have not used a single source to back up anything you have said, nothing. You are using JW interpretations, period. That is why you will not list any sources. You know it and I know it. I can post Christian sources all day that refute everything you have said or will say and you know this. So list a source or it is nothing but your incorrect opinion.

RGacky3 said:
Find my a Jewish theologan that says that the Messiah is actually prophesied to be Yahweh using that scripture, none of them interprate that scripture that way, again, god is not a term ONLY used for Yahweh, moses is refered to as god.

No Jew was expecting that the messiah would be the almighty god.

Ummm Isaiah, whom the book is attributed to was Jewish. Now do you have a SOURCE to refute he was other than Jewish?

"Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6: 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

"As has been mentioned, Isaiah, the son of Amoz, was a member of the royal family." - The Prophet Isaiah - The Kingdom of Judah

So I guess Isaiah was pretty surprised that no one thought his prophecy was correct, lol.

RGacky3 said:
1. Jesus didn't say that, Thomas did,
2. Jesus did'nt say he was God, he refered to himself as the son of god.
3. Again god is not ALWAYS refering to Yahweh

#1 I know that's why I said "Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy".
#2 I know that's why I said ""the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization?"
#3 This is true, in context it is irrelevant here.

RGacky3 said:
The same in Colossians 1, it obviously is saying that all things other than him.

Also when you take into context the rest of the bible, its obvious that he isn't refering to himself as the almighty god.

You have got to be kidding?

John 5:17,18 - “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
Philippians 2:5-7 - Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men.

So much for not being equal, but lets continue...

"John 1:3: 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

This does not in anyway say "it obviously is saying that all things other than him." Taken in or out of context.

When you take into account the rest of the Bible, it says exactly the same thing.

John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (v.1) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (v.14) - Is Jesus God?

Now do you have a source to back up your claim which I have shown to be false?

RGacky3 said:
Of coarse for the Isrealites and Jews God was the only savior ... the messiah hadn't come yet, and given that Jesus was sent by God, it's consistant.

Source? Anything? Here is one that says no...

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Pretty self explanatory.

RGacky3 said:
He didn't give parables out of fear, or to hide the truth.

Has nothing to do with anything I said. Please point out where I said anything even close.

RGacky3 said:
If you take the literal translation to mean physically the same, and in union, then youd have to admit that the apostles were all equally God as well ... which is rediculous.

OK you are reaching on this one. No you do not have to admit any such nonsense.

Still no source to back up what you are implying either, nothing.

RGacky3 said:
Look at people's names in the old testiment, almost all of them reference yahweh or eloheim, i.e. god, that's extremely common.

God is placing incomparable significance on His own name. He identifies Himself as Yhvh, or Yahweh which becomes the proper name of the God of Israel. It is used 6824 times in the Old Testament as God's name.[8] *Little can be determined as to the meaning of this name from the etymology, therefore we must look to God's character through word and deed in order to understand it.[9] - http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue2/nmsofgod.htm*

So no.

RGacky3 said:
So I guess all christians who said "Christ is in me" are saying they are actually God also?

They are talking about something completely different as I have explained below.

RGacky3 said:
The Trinity doesn't make sense, saying "son of God" is logically incompatible with being God.

Your opinion means little.

RGacky3 said:
Jews that follow Jesus ARE christians.
And again, its just logical, "just as we are one" would mean, (according to your logic) that the apostles are also God.

Well this is an easy one to debunk...

Calendar - Resources - Jews for Jesus

Better give em a call and let them know they don't exist.

As for the second part, that is exactly what he is talking about...

John 14:3 I will come back again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also.
John 3:2-3 When he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. - Union With God

This however does not make anyone other than Jesus, God.

RGacky3 said:
its not a strech at all, look what he wrote, he was saying that he WAS NOT GOD and they were mistaken, explaining that other people were called gods.

The Jews have asked Jesus to plainly say if He is the Messiah. We may summarize His response as follows:"You should already know the answer to this question: My words and my works tell you plainly who I am. The reason you don't know who I am is because you do not believe. My sheep hear my voice and know me, but you are not my sheep. I grant eternal life to my sheep, and no one can snatch from my hand those that the Father gives me. My Father is greater than all and no one can snatch my sheep from my Father's hand - my Father and I are One!"At this point, the Jews understand that Jesus is making exclusive claims of equality with God, which (unless true!) are blasphemous. Jesus asks which works He has done that warrant the charge of blasphemy. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works, but for the words He has just spoken.

"The Scripture says that God calls the judges in Psalm 82 'gods' on the basis of their divine commission. Thus, since the Scripture cannot be wrong, it is not blasphemy for one with a divine commission to have a divine title. I do not have a commission like the judges; I have an exclusive commission from my Father, for He set me apart and sent me into the world - to do the works you have seen, to say the words I have said, to grant eternal life to my sheep, to hold them fast in the same way my Father does, for He and I are One. Therefore, I have not committed blasphemy! But even if you persist in denying my words, you should believe on the basis of my works, for they prove that the Father is in Me in the same way I am in Him: we are One!" - For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - John 10:34

RGacky3 said:
I'm not using appeal to authority here, only logic and scripture.

Yes you are, you are just trying to conceal it because you know it is a false doctrine I assume.

RGacky3 said:
Did not argue that Jesus was Michael did I?

It is part of the whole "created" Jesus, you are trying to put forth. You know it and I know it.

RGacky3 said:
According to logic, reason and scripture, againt stop making red herrings and strawmen, stop trying to make this about appeals to authority, lets look at the verses. (new international version)

You are using JW teachings but don't want to admit it for whatever reason.

RGacky3 said:
John 14:28,
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Matthew 20:23
Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

Mark 13:32
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

+all the scriptures where he says he is Gods son and sent by God

Please point out where anyone denied Jesus is the son of God? It was not me?

RGacky3 said:
Obviously they are different, not equal, different in authority, different in knowlege.

The scriptures and SOURCES say no.

RGacky3 said:
Now either Jesus was a giant dick, lying to all his apostles about his true nature, OR he was telling the truth and he was Gods son and not equal to God.

According to whom?

RGacky3 said:
Revelation 1:1
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Jesus RECIEVES the revelation from God (after he's in heaven).

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

After Jesus is in heaven with God, he is still subject to God.

1 Corinthians 15:27,28
For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

God gives Christ authority, but not over God, and then Christ gives it back to God, obviously they are 2 seperate beings with different authority ... again after Jesus is in heaven.

(btw, does this verse saying God being all in all, mean that Spinoza was right and everything is God? Or is it, as it obviously is, not physical and literal.)

None of these scriptures rely on some interpretation, its pretty damn obvious what they are saying.

Again I have already shown this is not true. Who is this according to?

RGacky3 · Jan 9, 2013

Blackdog said:
So far you have not used a single source to back up anything you have said, nothing. You are using JW interpretations, period. That is why you will not list any sources. You know it and I know it. I can post Christian sources all day that refute everything you have said or will say and you know this. So list a source or it is nothing but your incorrect opinion.

This source is scriptrue.

Ummm Isaiah, whom the book is attributed to was Jewish. Now do you have a SOURCE to refute he was other than Jewish?

"Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6: 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

"As has been mentioned, Isaiah, the son of Amoz, was a member of the royal family." - The Prophet Isaiah - The Kingdom of Judah

So I guess Isaiah was pretty surprised that no one thought his prophecy was correct, lol.

You're interpreting that to mean that "mighty god" is refering to Yahweh, find me a Jewish scholar that believes that the messiah is supposed to be Yahweh based on that scripture, yeah Isaiah was jewish and said that, but like like moses is refered to as god, no one things moses is actually the almighty god.

#1 I know that's why I said "Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy".
#2 I know that's why I said ""the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization?"
#3 This is true, in context it is irrelevant here.

1. Yeah ... doesn't change point point.
2. Because that wouldn't have been the time to get into theology just incase people would get the wrong idea later on.
3. It absolutely is relevant.

You have got to be kidding?

John 5:17,18 - “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

And read his responce ..... He denies he is making himself equal to God, explaining (as I have) that other people can be refered to as God without being the almighty and also saying he is "THE SON of God"

Philippians 2:5-7 - Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men.

So much for not being equal, but lets continue...

Yeah ... He Didn't try to be equal to God, if he was equal to God it would'nt have been something he'd be trying to do .... (what translation are you using)

"John 1:3: 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

This does not in anyway say "it obviously is saying that all things other than him." Taken in or out of context.

Notice it says "Through him" rather than by him, also taken into account what Colossians 1:15 says, it makes sense, and give all that it is CLEAR that he is refering to things other than himself,

It makes sense, if you're in a room and you're saying "I made everything in here," You're obviously not refering to yourself.

John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (v.1) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (v.14) - Is Jesus God?

I already dealt with this, John 1:1 the greek is not saying the 2 are the same.

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Pretty self explanatory.

I alswered this already, look at all the names in the Hebrew scriptures .. you're just repeating yourself.

Eldad (God has loved)
Jonathan (Jehovah has given)
Michael (who is like God)
Isaiah (Jehovah is Salvation)

So names cannot be used as proof ... again, its just a name.

Has nothing to do with anything I said. Please point out where I said anything even close.

You claimed that Jesus was hiding his true identity out of fear ...

OK you are reaching on this one. No you do not have to admit any such nonsense.

Still no source to back up what you are implying either, nothing.

What part of "just as we are one" did you not get? The source is the scripture itself.

God is placing incomparable significance on His own name. He identifies Himself as Yhvh, or Yahweh which becomes the proper name of the God of Israel. It is used 6824 times in the Old Testament as God's name.[8] *Little can be determined as to the meaning of this name from the etymology, therefore we must look to God's character through word and deed in order to understand it.[9] - http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue2/nmsofgod.htm*

So no.

Doesn't actually deal with the point I made.

No place I can think of does the Bible say anything like that at all. It does say however things like...

2 Corinthians 10:11: As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine.

So I will say no you are completely wrong unless you can point me to a verse.

I'm refering to common language ...

Your opinion means little.

It isn't my opinion its logic.

Well this is an easy one to debunk...

Calendar - Resources - Jews for Jesus

Better give em a call and let them know they don't exist.

Jews for Jesus are christian ....

As for the second part, that is exactly what he is talking about...

John 14:3 I will come back again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also.
John 3:2-3 When he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. - Union With God

This however does not make anyone other than Jesus, God.

Ok, so its proof that Jesus is God, but when its appled the EXACT SAME WAY to the apostles it means something else ...??? Doesn't sound logical at all, it isn't refering to physical union with Jesus OR the apostles.

The Jews have asked Jesus to plainly say if He is the Messiah. We may summarize His response as follows:"You should already know the answer to this question: My words and my works tell you plainly who I am. The reason you don't know who I am is because you do not believe. My sheep hear my voice and know me, but you are not my sheep. I grant eternal life to my sheep, and no one can snatch from my hand those that the Father gives me. My Father is greater than all and no one can snatch my sheep from my Father's hand - my Father and I are One!"At this point, the Jews understand that Jesus is making exclusive claims of equality with God, which (unless true!) are blasphemous. Jesus asks which works He has done that warrant the charge of blasphemy. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works, but for the words He has just spoken.

"The Scripture says that God calls the judges in Psalm 82 'gods' on the basis of their divine commission. Thus, since the Scripture cannot be wrong, it is not blasphemy for one with a divine commission to have a divine title. I do not have a commission like the judges; I have an exclusive commission from my Father, for He set me apart and sent me into the world - to do the works you have seen, to say the words I have said, to grant eternal life to my sheep, to hold them fast in the same way my Father does, for He and I are One. Therefore, I have not committed blasphemy! But even if you persist in denying my words, you should believe on the basis of my works, for they prove that the Father is in Me in the same way I am in Him: we are One!" - For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - John 10:34

READ what Jesus replied to, he denies that he was refering to himself as god.
The Jewish leadership may have thought that he was claiming equality (then again, they accused him of all sorts of false things), but he denied their claim.

It is part of the whole "created" Jesus, you are trying to put forth. You know it and I know it.

Obviously you can't deal with the arguments so you're just making strawmen.

Please point out where anyone denied Jesus is the son of God? It was not me?

The scriptures and SOURCES say no.

According to whom?

Again I have already shown this is not true. Who is this according to?

You cannot be the son of god and god at the same time.

But as you've ignored all the scriptural evidence I presnted I'll assume you have no answer for them, which would explain why you're so wound up over this.

Black Dog · Jan 9, 2013

RGacky3 said:
This source is scriptrue.

Not the incorrect interpretation you give it from JW teachings. From that religion.

RGacky3 said:
You're interpreting that to mean that "mighty god" is refering to Yahweh, find me a Jewish scholar that believes that the messiah is supposed to be Yahweh based on that scripture, yeah Isaiah was jewish and said that, but like like moses is refered to as god, no one things moses is actually the almighty god.

Now you are just being evasive. You said...

No Jew was expecting that the messiah would be the almighty god. - RGacky3

I proved not only a Jew, but a member of the Royal family and a true profit of God.

So keep reaching.

RGacky3 said:
1. Yeah ... doesn't change point point.
2. Because that wouldn't have been the time to get into theology just incase people would get the wrong idea later on.
3. It absolutely is relevant.

#1 That is not true. You tried to say I said the exact and polar opposite. So yes, it most certainly does change it.
#2 Riiiiiight, that's what happened. Come on man.
#3 It most certainly was irrelevant to my point or anything I pointed out.

OK I guess this is over.

You will not admit when you are completely wrong or just flip flop with no collaborating evidence or sources. You also misrepresent verses that are obviously not inline with what you are saying.

So without any collaborating sources etc, it is just you voicing an opinion which in the arena of debate means nothing.

And people wonder why atheists use JW teachings to try and disprove the existence of God. And why they are not considered Christian.

head of joaquin · Jan 9, 2013

RGacky3 said:
1. I don't think Constantine ever really became a christian, he was still sacraficing to Roman Gods, and still doing things that were obviously unchristian, (being emperor of a war mongering oppressive empire).

2. I think the idea of the divinity of Christ was genuine, but maybe partially the motivation was to seperate it from being a Jewish sect.

As far as blackdogs scriptural criticism of a translation of a bible I havn't once quoted, and thus havn't relied upon AT ALL for my arugment, (you gotta deal with the scriptures I actually quoted).

John 1:1. in Greek
En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.

“[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.”[4] Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as "...and the Word was divine."

You're wrong that "a God" is universally by Greek Scholars, some reject it, some do it, but a better traslation might be "divine." So that verse, John 1:1 doesn't show the trinity. Which is why the it is the word was with THE Theon, and theos was the word.

The rest have nothing really to do with my argument so I see no need to defend something I havn't proposed, again, you're just posting up strawmen.

Yep the Word was God. Funny John didn't say Jesus was. If it were so important, you think somebody would have just come out and said it. But nobody in the New Testament does, tellingly enough. They all say Jesus is the Son of God. That suggests to me that Jesus is the Son of God.

head of joaquin · Jan 9, 2013

Blackdog said:
In Jn 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?

I'm sure you are aware of the ambiguities in the Greek. If not see Furuli’s and Stafford's analysis of this passage.

In any case, once again, for something so central to doctrinal Christianity, you would think Thomas (or somebody) would have dispensed with ambiguities and just said, "Jesus, you're God."

But nobody ever does. Not in the gospels and not even in the epistles. Jesus is always the Son of God. Which strongly suggests to me that Jesus was the Son of God according to the people who knew him and himself.

Trinitarians must assume that the NT was engaged in coyness to the point of perversity.

Black Dog · Jan 9, 2013

head of joaquin said:
I'm sure you are aware of the ambiguities in the Greek. If not see Furuli’s and Stafford's analysis of this passage.

In any case, once again, for something so central to doctrinal Christianity, you would think Thomas (or somebody) would have dispensed with ambiguities and just said, "Jesus, you're God."

But nobody ever does. Not in the gospels and not even in the epistles. Jesus is always the Son of God. Which strongly suggests to me that Jesus was the Son of God according to the people who knew him and himself.

Trinitarians must assume that the NT was engaged in coyness to the point of perversity.

Maybe, maybe not. I mean it is nothing but speculation either way. I mean he said what he said and that is not peculation.

head of joaquin · Jan 9, 2013

Blackdog said:
Maybe, maybe not. I mean it is nothing but speculation either way. I mean he said what he said and that is not peculation.

Well, regrettably the Greek is ambiguous, as numerous scholars have pointed out. So the Greek is the Greek, but its meaning is not clear.

Black Dog · Jan 9, 2013

head of joaquin said:
Well, regrettably the Greek is ambiguous, as numerous scholars have pointed out. So the Greek is the Greek, but its meaning is not clear.

It can be, but in this case I don't think it is. Like I said it says what it says. Of course that is just my opinion.

gilbertc1908 · Jan 9, 2013

RGacky3 said:
I could go on and on, Jesus was very clear that Yahweh was greater than him, and the only true God, and that even after his death he was subject to God.

It is a perfectly reasonable debate to have, and it has been going on since the time of Christ.

However, it is neither obvious nor clear or there would not be a debate would there?

What is obvious is that the vast majority of followers of Jesus reasonably believe the basic dogma of Christianity and Catholocism and a far smaller number have their version. Having a vast majority in an of itself does not prove anything, except that your clarity is not shared so easily by people like me.

So while I certainly understand how you arrive at your conclusions I share a different one that you are unlikely to change given how difficult it was for me to arrive at it and how thoroughly I worked to avoid it over the years.

Again, it may be clear and obvious to you, but a couple of billion or more people nearly a third of the world's population see it a bit differently so it isn't so clear and obvious as you make it sound.

RGacky3 · Jan 10, 2013

Blackdog said:
Not the incorrect interpretation you give it from JW teachings. From that religion.

Just scripture and its obvious meaning.

Now you are just being evasive. You said...

No Jew was expecting that the messiah would be the almighty god. - RGacky3

I proved not only a Jew, but a member of the Royal family and a true profit of God.

So keep reaching.

1. We already discussed how people other than the almighty god were called gods .... so that isn't really proff.
2. If EVERY JEWISH SCHOLAR interpretes that verse not to mean that the massiah would be the embodyment of God, then I'm inclined to believe them rather than you.

#1 That is not true. You tried to say I said the exact and polar opposite. So yes, it most certainly does change it.
#2 Riiiiiight, that's what happened. Come on man.
#3 It most certainly was irrelevant to my point or anything I pointed out.

1. I said that Jesus didn't refer to himself as God ... Thomas referd to Jesus as him.
2. Everyone there obviously didn't take what Thomas said to mean "Jesus is Yahweh the almight god," since everything in the rest of the new testiment shows otherwise.
3. Its relevant to understand what people would have understood Thomas to mean, and what the situation was, context is always relevant.

OK I guess this is over.

You will not admit when you are completely wrong or just flip flop with no collaborating evidence or sources. You also misrepresent verses that are obviously not inline with what you are saying.

So without any collaborating sources etc, it is just you voicing an opinion which in the arena of debate means nothing.

And people wonder why atheists use JW teachings to try and disprove the existence of God. And why they are not considered Christian.

The evidence is scripture, since I don't take anything else as authoritive (unless you want to quote the pope or something).

How do I misrepresent them? I've posted tons of verses that you have not responded to AT ALL, and I've defended my position.

Posting a source would just be someone elses opinion ... the source I'm using is scripture, and I've shown pretty conclusively that Jesus didn't think of himself as God, and his apostles didn't think of him as God, and the messiah wasn't prophisied to be God.

All the verses I posted show pretty conclusively the answer.

RGacky3 · Jan 10, 2013

gilbertc1908 said:
It is a perfectly reasonable debate to have, and it has been going on since the time of Christ.

However, it is neither obvious nor clear or there would not be a debate would there?

What is obvious is that the vast majority of followers of Jesus reasonably believe the basic dogma of Christianity and Catholocism and a far smaller number have their version. Having a vast majority in an of itself does not prove anything, except that your clarity is not shared so easily by people like me.

So while I certainly understand how you arrive at your conclusions I share a different one that you are unlikely to change given how difficult it was for me to arrive at it and how thoroughly I worked to avoid it over the years.

Again, it may be clear and obvious to you, but a couple of billion or more people nearly a third of the world's population see it a bit differently so it isn't so clear and obvious as you make it sound.

There are things that are obvious and clear which people don't accept ... For example it's pretty obvious and clear that scientific racism is false, yet people cling on to it, I mean it is almost abundantly clear that the New Testiment would be against war, nationalism, militarism, class systems and so on, yet many christians are all pro war.

The reason for this is, in my opinion, constantinian christianity, i.e. when Christianity got taken up by the Roman Empire, it got infused with all sorts of non christian doctrines and practices, which became Orthodox.

I think for most people the trinity doctrine isn't the reason they are christians, but they believe it just because its Orthodoxy, just like the believe in the Augustinian "just war" philosophy, which is diametricly opposed to New Testiment Christianity.

SMTA · Jan 10, 2013

JW OP calls out Blackdog in post.

Blackdog beats OP to a pulp numerous times.

JW OP, even dying from mortal wounds still unable to see that he is wrong, and has been hammered.

JW OP still unable to recognize that blind tenacity, while admirable, does not help a losing position.

Blackdog declared winner due to common sense, correct interpretation, and just plain being right.

Discussion with Blackdog on the Divinity of Christ.

RGacky3

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

RGacky3

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

RGacky3

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

RGacky3

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

head of joaquin

RGacky3

RGacky3

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

RGacky3

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

RGacky3

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

head of joaquin

head of joaquin

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

head of joaquin

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

gilbertc1908

Member

RGacky3

RGacky3

SMTA

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna