Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | flinkywood | 76316 | ||
Truthfinder, this is a re-posting of what I asked you twice over the last 8 months, for which I haven't received your reply: A little while back I asked you to compare Abraham's faith to God's; you never responded to that particular question. To wit: Whereas the JW's state that Jesus is really the archangel Michael, a creation, and whereas Abraham was poised to sacrifice his own son, and God only a proxy creation (Michael-Jesus), not even so much as His own flesh and blood, who, therefore, has greater faith, Abraham, the father of Issac, or God, the father of...Michael the archangel?" Is Michael the real Son of God? Does Abraham have more faith than God? I also understand the JW's don't believe in hell, which is particularly handy when you don't believe in Jesus. If there ain't no hell, then what's Jesus-Michael saving us from? It's the pointless sacrifice of an angel, which probably nails the JW position on Jesus' true identity right to the wood: God's not fool enough to waste His blood on us. What a mess this JW thing is. The subject is faith and whether you got it, whether you got Jesus. Ask Jesus Himself who He is. All your Pharisitical JW word whacking is bloodless jive. |
||||||
2 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Truthfinder | 76328 | ||
Hi Col. 1:15, 16, RS: "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"? (1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah's family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh's family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all . . . other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God. Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . 'And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe´] of God's creation."'" (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was 'the beginner of God's creation,' that he was its 'ultimate source.' But Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists "beginning" as its first meaning of ar·khe´. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God's creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be "created.") Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Dy reads: "his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying "days of eternity," RS renders the Hebrew as "ancient days"; JB, "days of old"; NW, "days of time indefinite." Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning. Truthfinder |
||||||
3 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Morant61 | 76347 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! Allow me to address a couple of your points! 1) Firstborn: If your position as a JW is that Jesus is a created 'god', how can you justify that position in light of Is. 43:10. First of all, Scripture is clear that there are NO OTHER GODS. Secondly, Is. 43:10 specifically says that there were no gods 'formed' or 'created' either before or after Jehovah. So, how can Jesus be another, created god, when Is. 43:10 explicitly denies this is the case? 2) Other: This is yet another example of biased translation by the JW's. You complain in several of your posts that traditional translators let their bias affect their translations, yet defend the JW's for doing the same thing in Col. 1:16-17. There is no word for 'other' in this passage, and the example of Luke 13:2 does not justify it's inclusion in Col. 1:16-17. Luke 13:2 is making a comparison between some Galilians and all Galilians, thus the translators chose to bring this out with the word 'other'. However, there is no comparision being made in Col. 1:16-17. It simply says that He created all things. Besides, even if you were correct and Jesus created 'all other things', you still have a major problem. The OT states numerous times that Jehovah created all things. So, did Jehovah create all things or did Jesus create all things? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Ms. Trish | 76357 | ||
God, The Father God, The Son God, The Holy Spirit; are merely some of the ways God manisfested Himself. i.e. The Burning Bush etc. |
||||||
5 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Morant61 | 76366 | ||
Greetings Ms. Trish! Thanks for the reply! However, what you are describing is what is known as Modalism. It was declared a heresy many thousands of years ago. If you do a word search on 'trinity' and 'modalism', you will find many posts which deal with why this was declared a heresy. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||