I am a JW, why should I consider becoming a C

[Mohrb]

is the name of Jehovah actually the name of the lord or is it something you all took from the tetragrammation and put with the vowels from adonai and made that his name? which we trinitarians did in attempt to pronounce the YHWH.

As far as if "Jehovah" is something that JWs made up... check Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4 in the king James version. Many other versions contain the name spelled "Jehovah" in at least this many places, however, some like the "New King James" version removes God's name even here.

... speaking of translations changing scripture... I'm curious as to why it's "OK" to remove God's name from the bible?

... back to the point... you were saying that Jesus is above every name... Jesus' name is above Jehovah's name? If you just don't like the translation of "Jehovah"... then, do you believe that Yeshua's name is above YHWH's name?

(I always find it strange how people will make such a fuss over "Jehovah may not be the correct pronunciation because we're not sure on the vowel points" ... yet, they'll gladly pronounce "Yeshua" as "Jesus."

 

[jasoncran]

because yeshua is hebrew and we arent speaking that on this forum. thats why.

if you want to go there. then it should be yahweh then? should it not?

greek is the language nt and that was used as nt writers choice.

if you read the very first post on this topic by solo you get your answer. How can jesus share the glory of the father. hmm if they arent both part of the trinity.

we speak of him as we are grateful to the death and subsequent resurrection.

and no your religion didnt come up with the name of jehovah. but claim that its the name of the lord alone when it can be and acording to some it is. but that is contestable as that vowel thing is rather hard to replace.

we dont know for sure do we.unless you can show some evidence of he ancients hebrews speaking and calling the YHWH as Jehovah alone.

 

[Mohrb]

Re: Mysteryman:

All very good verses. Thank you.

Am I asking too many questions ?

No such thing as too many questions. Only too few answers.

 

[jasoncran]

Isaiah 48:11 And to no one else shall I give my own glory.

(Verses regarding Jesus)
John 8:54It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is YOUR God

John 16:14 That one will glorify me

John 17:1 ¦Father, the hour has come; glorify your son

John 17:5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

Philippians 2:10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground

Hebrews 5:5 So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him; You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.

thanks to mike solo even though banned from this site.

 

[Mohrb]

I cannot help but notice that you have not addressed my post from page 9.

Aha, I thought I had, but I do see a couple of points that I must have missed.

First, you pointed out that the NWT says "Col 1:16-17, 16 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. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist."

Do you believe Jesus created himself? Neither do we. The translators of the NWT thought it was grammatically important to put in "other" there because it was obvious that Jesus didn't create himself before he was created. Jesus was the firstborn of creation, and everything else was created through him. It's still true that "apart from him" nothing was created... because the only thing he didn't have a hand in creating was himself... because he wasn't around to create himself. Seems rather logical to me.

Do you really suggest that the translation indicates the following?:
"Because by means of him, all things (including Jesus) were created in the heavens and on earth, visable and invisible, be they lordships or governments or authorities. All things (including Jesus) have been created through him and for him. And he is before all things (including himself) by means of him all things (including himself) were made to exist."

John 1:3 supports translations which state "the Word was God" and contradicts any attempt to translate the statement as "the Word was a god."

... how so?

Which is why it is better stated that Jesus was truly God and truly man.

"better" or simply "more vaguely?" What do you believe is suggested by someone being "truly God and truly man?" Can he be "truly finite" while still being "truly infinite?" Can he "truly die" while remaining "truly alive?" And, if you consider this wording better... upon what do you base this wording? Other than arbitrary human opinion?

I remember intentionally skipping responding to the "truly" point because I couldn't figure out a way to put it that didn't sound judgmental. I just don't see what's so bad about believing Jesus when he says that he's the "Son" of God... I don't see any evidence that necessitates him being God himself. If he is God, and he died... that means that God can be killed... seems like a dangerous thought. I don't believe that an infinite God is capable of death... the simple fact that Jesus died for us shows that he wasn't almighty. Still God's only-begotten son... a sinless and precious sacrifice that paid for all sin. But I see Jesus repeatedly stating that he was only a servant of God... why does it make me non-Christian to agree with the statements of Christ?


... on the topic of people skipping posts... 11th post down on page 10. I'd really like to see someone's response to those points. They seemed to have been skipped over.

 

[Mohrb]

So that people don't have to find it... this is the post that I'd really like some input on:

Mohrb, in all honesty, it's refreshing to hear from you, as you politely stir up lively debate.

Thank you, I'll take that as a huge compliment :shades

Okay, so you're going to remain fixed that Jesus' reference to His Father while He was in the flesh cancels out all the places where He makes His claim as do the authors.

So, we should ignore when Jesus specifically stated that the Father was the only True God on the basis that "it was while he was on earth" so it shouldn't count? K... what about 1 Corinthians 15:24-28? This is after Jesus has been in heaven, speaking of the end of his thousand year reign.

24. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27. For he "has put everything under his feet." 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.

If Jesus is God, why does it show Jesus handing back the authority he was given by God back to God? Specifically that the Son himself will be made subject to God (After Jesus' thousand year reign). Is there any other interpretation for this? Is the above (from the NIV) a mistranslation somehow?

Or, look closely at revelation 22.

6. The angel said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place."
7. "Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book."
8. I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me.
9.But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"
10.Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near.
11.Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."
12."Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

1: Note that in verse 6, the one speaking to John is "an angel" who refers to himself as "coming soon." Would you agree that it's the one speaking who is "coming soon?"

2: And that this angel is denying worship, calling himself a "fellow servant." Agree so far?

3: In verse 10, it says "Then he told me" and goes on speaking, saying again "I am coming soon" in verse 12. Do you agree that it's the same one speaking in verse 12 as it was in the previous verses?

4: Read the rest of the chapter... tell me if this isn't one continuous quote starting in verse 10. Who does the one who was called an "angel" later reveal himself to be? (Pay special attention to verse 20.)

You still can't give a solid reason for saying you're a "Christian" in spite of denying the deity of He who embodies the word!

Can a person claim to be a Christian when they deny what Jesus preached throughout his life? (That he was the "Son" of God and one who did nothing of his own will but only did as he was instructed by his Father and our Father... his God and our God (John 5:30))

Do you believe you were created to adore God? Of course you do. So I would think you have a choice.

Of course God is God. But the Father seemed to make it clear that we are to have NO other Gods before him.

Here's my biggest confusion... if people believe that the Father and Son are the same being... why is it so imperative that everyone worship one part of that being over the other? If you agree that the Father and Son are both part of the same being... Isn't my worshiping the Father JUST as valid a way to worship God as you worshiping the Son? Why are trinitarians SO opposed to worshiping the one that the Son clearly worshiped, prayed to and credited for everything he did? What's so bad about worshiping God exactly like Jesus worshiped him? What makes trinitarians demand that the Son completely replace the Father, if they believe that the Son and the Father are the same being?

-Chris [/quote]

 

[jasoncran]

because jw deny the fact that jesus is just much as God as the father is God. thats why

i have been to pentacostal churches were the father is called upon and uplifted.

 

[Mohrb]

Being a Christian is to recognize that one does not believe to become a Christian. One believes , because he is already a Christian.

I appreciate this point of view

... not entirely sure I agree... but I understand the intention behind the thought. The danger is that this means regardless of what we believe or do or anything... God's already forfeited people to death... some people would be beyond salvation before they've sinned. I think that's a fairly dangerous concept. I'm sure God can see these things coming, and can anticipate who will and won't serve him. But I believe people do have free-will (as predictable as it may be)... and that God calls to everyone... he may know who will or won't answer his call... but I don't think that evil people are evil because God made them that way.

This gets into the topic of predestiny vs. free will. Yes, God can see things coming... that doesn't mean he made it happen. Similarly, I may see a table across the room, and see a ball about to roll off. I can see it just start to roll and can anticipate that it'll keep rolling unless someone stops it. And if no one stops it, it'll fall off the table, and I may even be able to anticipate what will happen after it falls. That doesn't mean I caused that ball to fall.


True God calls us first... but we do have to play a part in answering.

 

[jasoncran]

careful there are some serious bible scholars that will debate you on the predetermine counsel of God. and on whether adam was destined to sin.

namely mondar.

 

[Mike]

I cannot help but notice that you have not addressed my post from page 9.

Aha, I thought I had, but I do see a couple of points that I must have missed.

First, you pointed out that the NWT says "Col 1:16-17, 16 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. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist."

Do you believe Jesus created himself? Neither do we. The translators of the NWT thought it was grammatically important to put in "other" there because it was obvious that Jesus didn't create himself before he was created. Jesus was the firstborn of creation, and everything else was created through him. It's still true that "apart from him" nothing was created... because the only thing he didn't have a hand in creating was himself... because he wasn't around to create himself. Seems rather logical to me.

Do you really suggest that the translation indicates the following?:
"Because by means of him, all things (including Jesus) were created in the heavens and on earth, visable and invisible, be they lordships or governments or authorities. All things (including Jesus) have been created through him and for him. And he is before all things (including himself) by means of him all things (including himself) were made to exist."

Just thought I'd set the stage again. Col 1:16-17 (NIV)

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Chris, this all falls into place if you understand Christ to have always have been. Jesus was never created. He has always been in the presence with the Trinity. Does this make sense (from our perspective), or am I too simplistic. I'll happily go into more detail if need be, but I don't think I need to.

... on the topic of people skipping posts... 11th post down on page 10. I'd really like to see someone's response to those points. They seemed to have been skipped over.

Sorry, Chris. This thread is moving pretty fast. I looked back, but I'm not sure which verse you're referring to. I'm assuming your Revelation verses. Yes? Perhaps you can reset it.

Hey, Chris, if in all this you can bother to respond to this, I'd appreciate it. You told me you were involved in the (.net) forum. I found that forum around the time I stumbled into here. It seemed like a horribly difficult board to navigate around. I couldn't just read threads as we do here. It was just a bunch of titles piled up against one another. How did you ever put up with that??? Maybe I just didn't stick around long enough to know better.

Thanks, as always,
Mike

 

[Mike]

Hi mjjcb

Maybe I gave you too much to chew on. So lets break down what I said in small increments , shall we ?

Would you consider responding to this statment that I made >

"What actually makes one a Christian ? Doctrine ? Did you choose God, or did God choose you ? Did you choose God according to your doctrine, or according to scripture ? And if it is God's buisness whom he chooses, then doctrine has nothing to do with whom God has chosen. And if God chose you and myself from before the foundations of the earth. Then doctrine will follow after, not before. In other words, doctrine does not make or not make one a christian. "

Thanks

Mysteryman, it's not that you gave me too much to chew on. I'm more focused on the discussion between JW's and Christians. Honestly, I don't mean this to offend, but you're splash back into the discussion sort of derailed our mojo.

Actually Chris sort of took up for me already. But this paragraph is disconnected within itself. You go from (I'm paraphrasing) "Is a Christian defined by what he believes? Where his faith lies?" to --->"How did you come to be chosen?". These are two different issues!!! You apparently are bent on predestination and it sort of derailed you from the beginning of your own thought. Christianity itself and the people who hold to it are defined by what they believe. You clearly love the word "doctrine", but I'll stick to "believe". I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus is God in and with the Trinity. I know there are Christians with different understandings of the Trinity, but this is a hard concept to come to grips with. Believing that Jesus is God is essential.

So, I'll go with you as you steer your car off the road into how we came to believe. I believe that I have no ability to find reason in the Truth outside of the work of the Holy Spirit. He gives me the insight and the clarity to accept something otherwise unacceptable.

Ask yourself. If predestination is correct, why would we need to live one day at a time? I suppose we would be robots, and would have no need to make our own choices, since God would be controlling all our motives, emotions, and courses of action. There are just too many references to a free will of man theology in the bible, that quickly silences predestination theology.

First in (Romans 6:14-20) it says that unbelievers are slaves to sin, are very sick (Jer 17:9), are full of evil Mark (7:21-23), love the darkness rather than the light (John 3:19), are dead to his sins (Eph 2:1), do not seek after God (Rom 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) and Romans 3:10-12. This verse says that there are none who seek after God and there are no righteous.

Now...where is Mohrb? totopic

 

[Free]

First, you pointed out that the NWT says "Col 1:16-17, 16 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. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist."

Do you believe Jesus created himself? Neither do we. The translators of the NWT thought it was grammatically important to put in "other" there because it was obvious that Jesus didn't create himself before he was created. Jesus was the firstborn of creation, and everything else was created through him. It's still true that "apart from him" nothing was created... because the only thing he didn't have a hand in creating was himself... because he wasn't around to create himself. Seems rather logical to me.

Ah, but the error is the presumption that Jesus was created. One of the main points Paul is making with that passage is that Jesus was not created. This is in complete agreement with John 1:3, as well as some other passages.

Do you really suggest that the translation indicates the following?:
"Because by means of him, all things (including Jesus) were created in the heavens and on earth, visable and invisible, be they lordships or governments or authorities. All things (including Jesus) have been created through him and for him. And he is before all things (including himself) by means of him all things (including himself) were made to exist."

Of course I wouldn't suggest that. As I pointed out above, Paul is making the point that Jesus was not created. The addition of "other" completely changes the meaning of what Paul is saying and puts this passage in tension with John 1:1-3.

John 1:3 supports translations which state "the Word was God" and contradicts any attempt to translate the statement as "the Word was a god."

... how so?

Quoting from the NWT:

John 1:1-3, 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Notice that verse 3 very clearly states that "all things came into existence through him." It then goes on to state that "apart from him not even one thing came into existence." Logic tells us that if not even one thing came into existence apart from the Word, then the Word could never have come into existence and therefore must have always existed. There is no way around it and the Greek supports this.

So, since the Word must have always existed, it completely supports verse 1, according to correct translations which state that "the Word was God." Only God has existed for eternity past.

The NWT has these glaring contradictions which aren't found in many other translations.

Which is why it is better stated that Jesus was truly God and truly man.

"better" or simply "more vaguely?" What do you believe is suggested by someone being "truly God and truly man?" Can he be "truly finite" while still being "truly infinite?" Can he "truly die" while remaining "truly alive?" And, if you consider this wording better... upon what do you base this wording? Other than arbitrary human opinion?

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God Incarnate, God in human flesh and does not reveal more than this. That is all we can say--Jesus is the God-man.

I remember intentionally skipping responding to the "truly" point because I couldn't figure out a way to put it that didn't sound judgmental. I just don't see what's so bad about believing Jesus when he says that he's the "Son" of God... I don't see any evidence that necessitates him being God himself. If he is God, and he died... that means that God can be killed... seems like a dangerous thought. I don't believe that an infinite God is capable of death... the simple fact that Jesus died for us shows that he wasn't almighty. Still God's only-begotten son... a sinless and precious sacrifice that paid for all sin. But I see Jesus repeatedly stating that he was only a servant of God... why does it make me non-Christian to agree with the statements of Christ?

No one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God and there is plenty of evidence that shows he is God, such as John 1:1-3, Phil 2:5-7, and Col 1:16-17.

Who Jesus is is of central importance to salvation.

 

[Free]

... on the topic of people skipping posts... 11th post down on page 10. I'd really like to see someone's response to those points. They seemed to have been skipped over.

Yeah, it's been a little hard to follow. Which points (I think you meant post 12)? I know that some of them have been addressed.

 

[Mohrb]

Chris, this all falls into place if you understand Christ to have always have been. Jesus was never created. He has always been in the presence with the Trinity.

First, if he was never created, isn't it apparent that Jesus isn't included in the things created through him?
However, second, if Jesus was never created... mind explaining why he's called the "firstborn of creation" in verse 11 of that same chapter? I've seen quite a few people claim that "Firstborn" may mean a position of greatness rather than chronological "firstness"... however, if that's right all that would indicate is that he may not be the "first" of creation... he's still "of creation." Then, when you're done with that, would you mind explaining why Jesus isn't just any "son" ... but the only begotten Son of God (1 John 4:9 and all over John chapter 1-3). ... for the record, the definition of beget - "To cause; to produce; To procreate; to father (rarely: to mother)" ... either way you cut it... Jesus being specifically called "begotten" specifies that he's caused, produced, fathered, generated, etc


... The bible calls Jesus "firstborn of creation" and "only-begotten Son of God" ... that's saying he was "created" 4 different ways. What's the specific verse you're reading that suggests that Jesus has always existed like his Father (That couldn't be easily explained by Jesus simply being the first creation)?

Hey, Chris, if in all this you can bother to respond to this, I'd appreciate it. You told me you were involved in the (.net) forum. I found that forum around the time I stumbled into here. It seemed like a horribly difficult board to navigate around. I couldn't just read threads as we do here. It was just a bunch of titles piled up against one another. How did you ever put up with that??? Maybe I just didn't stick around long enough to know better.

I came to christianforums.net from christianforums.com.... the .com version is definitely a very different site. The moderators there have some quite.... interesting... interpretations of what their own rules say (For example, just asking a member to "please tone down the aggression and show the other posters some respect. Please refer to the rules section at the top for this site's definition of flaming." ... is considered "brinking on discussing moderator action" ... and you can get banned for it.

Go figure.

The .com version seems to simply have a lot more sections for specific topics. Just click on a specific subsection, and it'll bring you to a forum that looks very similar to these ones.

 

[Mohrb]

Ah, but the error is the presumption that Jesus was created.

What specifically makes you so sure that the error isn't the presumption that Jesus wasn't created. (see the post directly above this one)

The addition of "other" completely changes the meaning of what Paul is saying and puts this passage in tension with John 1:1-3.

We both agree that Jesus isn't a part of what Jesus created and that Jesus played some part in the creation of all things other than himself and God. I believe it was because the eternal God created Jesus first. You believe it's because they're both eternal. If you disagree with that translation so much, feel free to prefer another translation. I don't see a conversation about "you not approving of a specific translation of a specific verse" being any more productive.

John 1:1-3, 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

There are two other possible consideration. "Apart from him" could be referring to "with the exception of his creation." Or, more likely (IMO), that his creation obviously wasn't "apart" from himself (considering it was the creation of him).

For example, if I said, "Apart from this sandwich, I have never made a sandwich this good!" ... would you interpret this to mean that the sandwich that is "this good" must not have been made by me? Or that this sandwich is exceptional in that it is the best one I've made. (In reality, I'm not eating a sandwich... instead it's a taco that I over-cooked... :mad )

So, since the Word must have always existed, it completely supports verse 1, according to correct translations which state that "the Word was God." Only God has existed for eternity past.

You're supporting a grammatically incorrect translation of John 1:1 based on an arbitrary assumption about John 1:3... when there's another perfectly simple and logical explanation of John 1:3 that happens to agree with the grammatically correct translation of John 1:1 (and the word was a god).

You still haven't responded to the fact that Jesus is the only-(1)begotten (2)son of God and first(3)born (4)of creation. There a reason you're avoiding these points?

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God Incarnate, God in human flesh and does not reveal more than this. That is all we can say--Jesus is the God-man.

Where? :nag

 

[Mohrb]

Yeah, it's been a little hard to follow. Which points (I think you meant post 12)? I know that some of them have been addressed.

No worries. I reposted it as the top post of page 12.

 

[Mysteryman]

Being a Christian is to recognize that one does not believe to become a Christian. One believes , because he is already a Christian.

I appreciate this point of view

... not entirely sure I agree... but I understand the intention behind the thought. The danger is that this means regardless of what we believe or do or anything... God's already forfeited people to death... some people would be beyond salvation before they've sinned. I think that's a fairly dangerous concept. I'm sure God can see these things coming, and can anticipate who will and won't serve him. But I believe people do have free-will (as predictable as it may be)... and that God calls to everyone... he may know who will or won't answer his call... but I don't think that evil people are evil because God made them that way.

This gets into the topic of predestiny vs. free will. Yes, God can see things coming... that doesn't mean he made it happen. Similarly, I may see a table across the room, and see a ball about to roll off. I can see it just start to roll and can anticipate that it'll keep rolling unless someone stops it. And if no one stops it, it'll fall off the table, and I may even be able to anticipate what will happen after it falls. That doesn't mean I caused that ball to fall.


True God calls us first... but we do have to play a part in answering.

Hi

I agree with your last comment here. If God didn't call you, then you would never answer. And God would not call you,if he already knew you would not hear the call. Jesus said, my sheep hear my voice. And Jesus said that his Father gave him these sheep.

Predestination is simple. God tells us the he foreknew us. That is because of his foreknowledge.

Our free will always plays a part. But God looks way down the road in the future. He knows your every step before you take it, and every breath before you breath in and exhale. He already knows when you will take your last breath. He would not call you, unless his ability to know the future makes the choice of calling you a rational choice.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi mjjcb

Maybe I gave you too much to chew on. So lets break down what I said in small increments , shall we ?

Would you consider responding to this statment that I made >

"What actually makes one a Christian ? Doctrine ? Did you choose God, or did God choose you ? Did you choose God according to your doctrine, or according to scripture ? And if it is God's buisness whom he chooses, then doctrine has nothing to do with whom God has chosen. And if God chose you and myself from before the foundations of the earth. Then doctrine will follow after, not before. In other words, doctrine does not make or not make one a christian. "

Thanks

Mysteryman, it's not that you gave me too much to chew on. I'm more focused on the discussion between JW's and Christians. Honestly, I don't mean this to offend, but you're splash back into the discussion sort of derailed our mojo.

Actually Chris sort of took up for me already. But this paragraph is disconnected within itself. You go from (I'm paraphrasing) "Is a Christian defined by what he believes? Where his faith lies?" to --->"How did you come to be chosen?". These are two different issues!!! You apparently are bent on predestination and it sort of derailed you from the beginning of your own thought. Christianity itself and the people who hold to it are defined by what they believe. You clearly love the word "doctrine", but I'll stick to "believe". I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus is God in and with the Trinity. I know there are Christians with different understandings of the Trinity, but this is a hard concept to come to grips with. Believing that Jesus is God is essential.

So, I'll go with you as you steer your car off the road into how we came to believe. I believe that I have no ability to find reason in the Truth outside of the work of the Holy Spirit. He gives me the insight and the clarity to accept something otherwise unacceptable.

Ask yourself. If predestination is correct, why would we need to live one day at a time? I suppose we would be robots, and would have no need to make our own choices, since God would be controlling all our motives, emotions, and courses of action. There are just too many references to a free will of man theology in the bible, that quickly silences predestination theology.

First in (Romans 6:14-20) it says that unbelievers are slaves to sin, are very sick (Jer 17:9), are full of evil Mark (7:21-23), love the darkness rather than the light (John 3:19), are dead to his sins (Eph 2:1), do not seek after God (Rom 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) and Romans 3:10-12. This verse says that there are none who seek after God and there are no righteous.

Now...where is Mohrb? totopic

Hi

Let me remind you that this thread is in two parts. 1. JW's and 2. Consider becoming a Christian.

You stated that believing that Jesus is God is essential of one being or not being a Christian. As of yet, and you continue to avoid my request for scriptural back up to your comment.

I laid out some things for you to think about. But your interest seems to be focused upon the first part of this thread - JW's, and not upon the second part of this thread. Yet, you have made claim that a JW can not be a Christian according to a doctrine. This question is not about whether or not the trinity is correct or not. This question is in response to your comment that one can not be a Christian - unless one believes that Jesus is God. I also have made it abundantly clear, that I am not a JW, not do I support their beliefs. However, I do see irrational comments from Christians that should not be made. One being -- A JW can not be a Christian - because. Then you give your reason why. I am asking for scriptural support from you about your comment , as to why you claim this essential doctrine, yet will not even support your comments with scripture ?

Is it that you can't, or wont' , or just do not want too ? Are you more interested in the JW beliefs, than you are about your own comments ? So many want JW's to support every little detail. And I find nothing wrong with asking for detailed information. However, when someone asks you for detailed information. You totally avoid answering the questions. Do you not find this a bit strange ?

 

[Mike]

Hey, Chris, if in all this you can bother to respond to this, I'd appreciate it. You told me you were involved in the (.net) forum. I found that forum around the time I stumbled into here. It seemed like a horribly difficult board to navigate around. I couldn't just read threads as we do here. It was just a bunch of titles piled up against one another. How did you ever put up with that??? Maybe I just didn't stick around long enough to know better.

I came to christianforums.net from christianforums.com.... the .com version is definitely a very different site. The moderators there have some quite.... interesting... interpretations of what their own rules say (For example, just asking a member to "please tone down the aggression and show the other posters some respect. Please refer to the rules section at the top for this site's definition of flaming." ... is considered "brinking on discussing moderator action" ... and you can get banned for it.

Go figure.

The .com version seems to simply have a lot more sections for specific topics. Just click on a specific subsection, and it'll bring you to a forum that looks very similar to these ones.

Glad you caught my error, as I meant to say (.com) forum. Not interested in another forum. This one keeps me busy enough. Sorry for the sidetracked conversation!!!

Is it that you can't, or wont' , or just do not want too ?

Don't want to, actually. You bounce back into the conversation and lay out a list of things you demand responses about. I'm not getting sidetracked by your diversion. You can read my recent replies to Chris with scripture I have selected. If you don't believe they speak to Jesus' divinity, I'm not sure what I can do for you.

And from a time/resources perspective, I'm having a hard time keeping up with Chris's polite conversation. Apparently, I missed something on page 10. And his latest post warrants more of my time.

What if we both take a step back, both ratchet down the rhetoric, and politely share without a list of demands? :nod I have said (to Chris) "I could be wrong, you could be wrong, or we both could be wrong. I just believe I'm right." Is this arrogant of me?

 

[Mike]

First, if he was never created, isn't it apparent that Jesus isn't included in the things created through him?

Chris, I've read this several times, and I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you rephrase this???

However, second, if Jesus was never created... mind explaining why he's called the "firstborn of creation" in verse 11 of that same chapter? I've seen quite a few people claim that "Firstborn" may mean a position of greatness rather than chronological "firstness"... however, if that's right all that would indicate is that he may not be the "first" of creation... he's still "of creation." Then, when you're done with that, would you mind explaining why Jesus isn't just any "son" ... but the only begotten Son of God (1 John 4:9 and all over John chapter 1-3). ... for the record, the definition of beget - "To cause; to produce; To procreate; to father (rarely: to mother)" ... either way you cut it... Jesus being specifically called "begotten" specifies that he's caused, produced, fathered, generated, etc


... The bible calls Jesus "firstborn of creation" and "only-begotten Son of God" ... that's saying he was "created" 4 different ways. What's the specific verse you're reading that suggests that Jesus has always existed like his Father (That couldn't be easily explained by Jesus simply being the first creation)?

You're still stumbling over the term, "firstborn". I understand, given that which has been ingrained into your understanding within the JW church. It has nothing to do with creation. It is referring to His preeminence.

Though Jesus was not born until thousands of years after the world was created, he is called God's firstborn. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:15-18). The phrase "firstborn" is just one of several emphasizing Jesus' position. He is above everything and in all things he has preeminence. The emphasis is on his position and not the order of his birth.

In regards to his existence, Jesus is stated to be God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:1-3). As in the verse quoted from Colossians, this passage also states that everything made was made through Jesus.

The implication is that Jesus could not have been created or made, else that statement would be false. Jesus himself stated that he was eternal (no beginning and no end) when he stated, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). In Revelation Jesus states, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). It is the same phrase attributed to God, the Father, in Revelation 4:8 and 21:6.