Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
Apple7
New member
That is a JW invention.
Not even close.
ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως
Col 1.15 expresses subordination. The genitive substantive specifies that which is subordinated to, or under, the dominion of the head substantive. In this case, the creation is subordinate to Jesus.
Adding context, (Col 1.9 – 20), clearly and irrefutably demonstrates Jesus’ deity.
Further, Col 1.15 – 20 is a hymn…and, as we all know, hymns are sung to deity, not mortals.
Show us the Greek word rendered as 'firstborn'.
:cigar:
Already did...try not to ignore it this time...
λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν
Apple7
New member
Thrice Halleluiah, as already shown.
Holy, Holy, Holy, as used in both the OT and NT, etc, etc, etc...
The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
The Trinity IS one God!!!
Come on....how many times do you have to expose your ignorance...?
You keep fighting a strawman of your own creation....
Apple7
New member
οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοις ουρανοις και επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται
hoti en autō ektisthē ta panta en tois ouranois kai epi tēs gēs ta horata kai ta aorata eite thronoi eite kyriotētes eite archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai
For by Him all things were created; by that in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or rulers, or magistrates, or authorities; all things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1.16)
Three separate and distinct primary prepositions are used to describe Jesus’ creative power (i.e. ‘en’, ‘di’, & ‘eis’).
Three separate prepositions were used here to make it crystal clear that three separate modes of operation are in effect at the same time.
In each case, the preposition is flanked by the masculine singular, ‘auto’.
The first instance of ‘auto’ is in the dative singular masculine, indicating that Jesus is the object of the primary preposition, ‘en’, rendered as ‘by’.
The second instance of ‘auto’ is in the genitive singular masculine, indicating that Jesus is in direct possession of the creative act – i.e. He is in complete control of it – and is attached to the preposition ‘di’ rendered as, ‘through’.
The third instance of ‘auto’ is in the accusative singular masculine, again indicating that Jesus is the direct object of the preposition, ‘eis’, rendered as ‘for’.
Thus, from this Biblical verse alone, creation is By, Through, and For Jesus Christ all at the same time…indicating, yet, again, that He is the Triune creator God of the Universe.
Boom.
Ben Masada
New member
Standing Up to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Standing Up to Jehovah's Witnesses.
I do understand the Trinity as a Christian doctrine but not that Yahweh is composed of a Trinity.
Standing Up to Jehovah's Witnesses.
I do understand the Trinity as a Christian doctrine but not that Yahweh is composed of a Trinity.
Apple7
New member
We have already been over this many times before - but you refuse to learn...
Jesus IS The Glory to begin with, even in the OT.
The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
Look before you leap.
Observe…
Rev 4.9 – 11
And whenever the living creatures shall give glory and honor and thanks to the One sitting on the throne, to the One living to the ages of the ages, the twenty four elders fall down before Him sitting on the throne; and they will worship the One living to the ages of the ages, and will throw their crowns before the throne, saying, Lord, You are worthy to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created.
So…
Please tell us exactly how it is that God, who sits upon the Throne, is ‘worthy’ to ‘receive’ the glory and the honor and the power?
What did God have to do to become worthy of being given and receiving something?
Your position is officially toast…
Boom.
Ben Masada
New member
Standing up to "Jehovah's Witnesses."
Standing up to "Jehovah's Witnesses."
Ezekiel 1:26 was a vision of Daniel when in exile by the river Chebar in Babylon. We are not to perceive in literal terms what is said to have been in a vision or dream. Every thing is possible in a vision or dream.
The point is that it had nothing to do with Jesus but only according to Christian preconceived notions.
Standing up to "Jehovah's Witnesses."
Ezekiel 1:26 was a vision of Daniel when in exile by the river Chebar in Babylon. We are not to perceive in literal terms what is said to have been in a vision or dream. Every thing is possible in a vision or dream.
The point is that it had nothing to do with Jesus but only according to Christian preconceived notions.
Apple7
New member
Ben Masada
New member
Standing up to "Jehovah's Witnesses."
Standing up to "Jehovah's Witnesses."
The Scriptures aka the Tanach is Jewish. That's what Jesus always referred to as the Word of God. The NT, he never even dreamed would ever be written. You quoted the Tanach, one of the Jewish prophets. How can you say that a Jew knows nothing of his own Scriptures? You surely must be joking this time. What was that for, the laughs or the gags?
Standing up to "Jehovah's Witnesses."
The Scriptures aka the Tanach is Jewish. That's what Jesus always referred to as the Word of God. The NT, he never even dreamed would ever be written. You quoted the Tanach, one of the Jewish prophets. How can you say that a Jew knows nothing of his own Scriptures? You surely must be joking this time. What was that for, the laughs or the gags?
Apple7
New member
The Tanak is a veritable clinic on exactly how Jews improperly worshiped Yahweh!
Thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of verses, from prophet, after prophet, after prophet saying the same things...how Jews screwed-up royally- ALL the time, thousands of times over thousands of years.
So...
Tell us again how you supposedly KNOW scripture...?
Ben Masada
New member
Because I study it two hours a day every day of my life. Only recently I have added the NT in order to be able to discuss with Christians.
Apple7
New member
Thanks for NOT correcting my previous comment that your book of faith informs the reader that Jews incompetently worshiped Yahweh.
So...again...as a Jew means absolutely nothing.....to anyone....except pity for being a total and complete screw-up.
Period.
NWL
Active member
Don't be a sore loser.
Typical apple7, answer the question! Of course the text is saying creation is subordinate to Jesus, it doesn't change a thing to my question.
Is Jesus the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως? If so then give me and example where someone/something is prōtotokos (prōtotokos or equivalent variation) of something and not part of that group.
Irrelevant.
(Rev 5:12) In a loud voice they were saying: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
Could you show me in the above verse where it directly says anything about worship, my ignorant self can't seem to find the word worship in there.
NWL
Active member
I asked where the Holy Spirit is seen as sitting on Gods throne. Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but this in no way answers my question?
(Eze 3:14) "...The Spirit then lifted me up and took me away, and I went in bitterness and in the anger of my spirit, with the strong hand of the YHWH on me..."
(Eze 8:3) "...He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood..."
(Eze 37:1) "...The hand of the YHWH was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the YHWH and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones..."
Where exactly does it call the Holy spirit YHWH here? I understand you linking the "spirit of YHWH" and the "Hand of of YHWH" together, but where does it call the name or spirit here, YHWH? A poor example at best as far as I can see, please expand.
Jesus is the Word of God, with that God being the father. Thus it can be said that Jesus was the Word of the Father, as spokesman for him.
(John 12:49) "...For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken..."
That being said, Jesus according to your own reasoning is the Father
.Then how does it make sense to praise the One God three times using the divine name? If there is only one YHWH then why proclaim it as if there are three YHWH's, unless your stating they're praising each person of the trinity -who each aren't YHWH but all together YHWH- individually by the divine name which, again, makes no sense, as there is only ONE YHWH. They, according to you, don't each posses the name YHWH but all share the name unitedly.
My fault in thinking has nothing to do with myself, but rather your poor excuse of a explanation. The text makes perfect sense when you simply understand it as three praises for emphasis!
Apple7, is it possible the text simply praises Jah three times for emphasis?
NWL
Active member
Yes, and as we've talked about before many times you must use scripture to interpret scripture.
Jesus is subordinate to the father in creation. Scripture can speak of things being created by, through and for Jesus. Other verses like the below shed further light on the subject and shows clearly that the Father is the real active cause in creation, creating things through Jesus. (Heb 1:1-3,1 Cor 8:6) Yes yes I'm aware you reject the father being the Theos in Hebrews 1:1 because you know what implications it will bring.
Furthermore what does this have to do with what you quoted of me?
Was my rhetorical question/statement not an accurate portrayal of scripture? Does Jesus not do all things for the father? If you agree with me then why all the above writing on your part?
(John 5:30) "...By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me..."
(1 Cor 15:28) "...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also subject himself unto him that put all things under him..."
(Matt 26:39) "...Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will..."
NWL
Active member
No, just no. Your simple explanation that Jesus is always the one being spoken of when glory or truth is mentioned makes no sense. Scripture shows clear examples of glory being spoken of which cannot literally be talking about the person of Jesus. When I confronted you with these passages you never gave an explanation other than "Jesus is the subject", which did not explain how it were possible for Jesus himself to receive glory if he was glory along with numerous other contradictions.
I've still yet to find a single scholar or person even who shares the same ridiculous belief of you regarding that verse or the usage of the words glory or truth. Until you give some type of classification as to why glory always means Jesus, and truth always mean Jesus, apart from one of the usages of the Greek equivalent, then your point is dismissed as it holds no weight.
And so what if The Glory has the appearance of a Man? A few post ago you made reference to the spirit being a hand, does that mean the spirit is in a form of a hand? Poor skills.
What is this meant to disprove?
Where in the scripture does it state God has become worthy? I was fully aware of this verse before I made my statements.
Jesus is given the same epithets in Rev 5:12 as the person in Rev 4:9, so?
Maybe you can't remember, you were the one who stated "Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us" , I'm the one that spoke to the contrary.
The trinity is that GOD=Father/Son/HS, each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal. So looking at your statement that Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us, I failed to see how this single scripture shows that GOD=Father/Son/HS, and that each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal and yet one in nature. All I can see is Jesus being called the sames thing as Theos is called, which comes to no surprise since Jesus is a charaktēr of the one God. (Hebrews 1:3)
My problem wasn't regarding what you were trying to express but rather a highly false statement that Rev 5:12 proves the trinity, as if you don't understand how big a statement that is, which why its so laughable.
I actually want you to ponder over those type of statements you make Bowman, which you make all the time. Imagine if I addressed you with a single scripture and stated this verse proves that there is one God who is the father, and that Jesus is created person and isn't part of a trinity and the holy spirit isn't a person but a force which God uses. Then when you read the verse you quickly realized it didn't even address a single one of the points which were mentioned, how stupid would you think that person was? Now you know how I feel.
Lon
Well-known member
1) Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is not their a) Lord b) God c) Savior nor d )the historical Jesus Christ. This is the same against Mormonism as well.
A JW already understands your God and his/her is not the same. They do not pray to Jesus Christ.
2) They have no experts that 'can' rewrite the bible. I've had many in my home and not one can read then translate Greek. They changed John 1:1 willnilly. They are a sect of amateur laymen.
3) Be lights but also be diligent in shining against darkness. Pray for them when they leave: They are lost in ignorance and in desperate need of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. Unitarians who 'love their savior Jesus Christ' mean 'their' not 'our' Jesus Christ, or the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. (John W on TOL reminded me how important His incredible Name is, thanks John)
A JW already understands your God and his/her is not the same. They do not pray to Jesus Christ.
2) They have no experts that 'can' rewrite the bible. I've had many in my home and not one can read then translate Greek. They changed John 1:1 willnilly. They are a sect of amateur laymen.
3) Be lights but also be diligent in shining against darkness. Pray for them when they leave: They are lost in ignorance and in desperate need of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. Unitarians who 'love their savior Jesus Christ' mean 'their' not 'our' Jesus Christ, or the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. (John W on TOL reminded me how important His incredible Name is, thanks John)
Apple7
New member
Then you have no choice but to agree on the deity of The Son.
Its not as if you can exegetically demonstrate otherwise....nor do you even attempt to...
και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εκειθεν ξυλον ζωης ποιουν καρπους δωδεκα κατα μηνα εκαστον αποδιδουν τον καρπον αυτου και τα φυλλα του ξυλου εις θεραπειαν των εθνων και παν καταθεμα ουκ εσται ετι και ο θρονος του θεου και του αρνιου εν αυτη εσται και οι δουλοι αυτου λατρευσουσιν αυτω και οψονται το προσωπον αυτου και το ονομα αυτου επι των μετωπων αυτων
The very word that you are arguing over is entirely relevant.
This verse mandates that Jesus was never created and that He is the singular, nominative archē (i.e. the origin; the active cause), the singular genitive creation, and the singular genitive God.
λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν
Apple7
New member
Where is He not, is a better question.
Revelation tells us that The Father sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21); that Jesus sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21; 7.17; 22.1 - 3), & that Theos sits upon the Throne (Rev 7.10 – 11; 7.15; 12.5; 14.5; 19.4; 22.1 - 3).
Bringing it all together for you...
We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:
• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)
We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:
• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)
We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:
• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father
Apple7
New member
Jesus is the Word of God, with that God being the father. Thus it can be said that Jesus was the Word of the Father, as spokesman for him.
(John 12:49) "...For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken..."
That being said, Jesus according to your own reasoning is the Father
That would be your reasoning....and no wonder you are so confused.
This should clarify things for you...
And Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The Words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe Me because of the works themselves. Indeed, I tell you truly, the one believing into Me, the works which I do, that one shall do also, and greater than these he will do, because I go to My Father. (John 14.8 – 12)
Clearly, context comes to the rescue of the ignorant, as it declares that ‘abiding’ (menōn) has absolutely nothing to do with two persons being the same. The six other NT locations for ‘menōn’ plainly demonstrate that it was intended to be rendered as influence.
Further, if The Father and The Son were already each other, then there would be no need to ‘go to’ The Father…
Simple Biblical truth.
You could have figured this one out for yourself had you even tried...