Jesus Christ Claims to be Yahweh - John 8:23-25

[Runningman]

Sorry but this is not a verse.

It's context of several verses.

Why would you or anyone else believe that the word God (Theos) would change in meaning from one verse to the next.

One wouldn't believe God manifested in the flesh because 1 Timothy 3:16 has been proven to be an alteration to the Bible based on the best manuscripts. This alteration contradicts the Bible and also creates internal issues within the context of 1 Timothy 3.

God being justified or vindicated by His own Spirit is heresy at least. As if God needed any vindication... wouldn't you agree with that?

Yet, since Jesus is a man then there is no problem with Jesus being vindicated by the Spirit.

 

[follower]

1. The true man of God is heartsick, grieved at the worldliness of the Church, grieved at the toleration of sin in the Church, grieved at the prayerlessness in the Church. He is disturbed that the corporate prayer of the Church no longer pulls down the strongholds of the devil. ~ Leonard Ravenhill

 

[electedbyHim]

1 John 5:7 is I believe the Original what the Apostle John wrote, but was removed by those who oppose and reject the Teaching of the Trinity

The Greek reads,

“ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν”

Here we have the Three distinct Persons, "THE Father, THE Word, and THE Holy Spirit", the Greek articles here show that they are not one and the same Person. We also have the “τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες”, which is in the masculine plural, which cannot refer to one Person. We then see that these THREE distinct Persons, and ONE in "nature", which the neuter "ἕν", tells us, "One thing"

John uses very similar language in his Gospel

"ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν" (10:30), literally in English, "I and the Father one We are"

We have the neuter "ἕν", as in 1 John 5:7, and the masculine plural, "ἐσμεν", which cannot refer to One Person.
The "unity" Jesus speaks of here, is more than just "agreement", as it is clear from verse 28 and 29, that Jesus says He has the SAME POWER as the Father does, "no one will snatch them out of My hand...no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand". Only as Almighty God, could Jesus have said this.

In Matthew 28:19 we have the Three distinct Persons, Who have the One Name, in the singular, which no doubt is YHWH.

Both Testaments Teach that there are THREE distinct Persons, Who are equally YHWH, and that there is One GOD

I believe the Bible teaches the Trinity but.....

Verses 7–8
μαρτυροῦντες—after this participle, the Textus Receptus (the Received Text) adds the so-called Comma Johanneum (the Johannine passage): “in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth” (NKJV). Bruce M. Metzger states: “The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate.” And he adds, “If the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission … by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts.”23


NKJV New King James Version

23 Metzger, Textual Commentary, pp. 715, 716.

Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of James and the Epistles of John, vol. 14, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 355.


Hiebert explains that "The statement in verse 7 (KJV) concerning the three heavenly witnesses [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one] , commonly known as the Johannine Comma, is an expansion of the Greek text upon the basis of the Latin and is devoid of any reliable textual support as a true part of the original. Hodges and Farstad in the edition of The Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text, generally supportive of the Textus Receptus, rightly omit verse 7 entirely. Erasmus did not find the words in any of the Greek texts upon which he based his first two editions of his Greek New Testament, but in the third edition, in a spirit of compromise, he reluctantly included them in his text. Accordingly they were contained in the Textus Receptus upon which the translators of the King James Version based their English rendering. Because verse 7 in the King James Version is not an authentic part of the Greek text, it is here not given any interpretative treatment (The Epistles of John- An Expositional Commentary).

Marshall another respected authority on First John writes "This form of wording appears in no reputable modern version of the Bible as the actual text; most editions adopt the same practice as in the NIV of relegating the extra words to a footnote, while some (such as the RSV and NEB) totally ignore them. The words in fact occur in none of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John, except for a few late and worthless ones, and are not quoted by any early church writers, not even by those who would have joyfully seized upon this clear biblical testimony to the Trinity in their attacks on heretics; they probably owe their origin to some scribe who wrote them in the margin of his copy of 1 John; later they were erroneously regarded as part of the text. Beyond any shadow of doubt the wording of the NIV text represents what John actually wrote." (The Epistles of John - The New International Commentary on the New Testament- I. Howard Marshall)

W E Vine - The seventh verse, given in the KJV is not part of the original. No Greek manuscript earlier than the fourteenth century contains the passage. No version earlier than the fifth century in any other language contains it. (The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine)

MacDonald adds that "It always disturbs some devout Christians to learn that parts of verses 7, 8, as found in the KJV and NKJV, are actually found in only a handful of Greek manuscripts of the NT. But this does not at all affect the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some people think it is important to retain the words because they mention the three Persons of the Trinity. However, the truth of the Trinity does not depend on this passage alone, but is found in many other portions of the Scriptures… Having stated in the previous verses the Person and work of Christ, John now goes on to state the trustworthiness of our belief in Him." (Believer's Bible Commentary)

 

[Runningman]

I believe the Bible teaches the Trinity but.....

Verses 7–8
μαρτυροῦντες—after this participle, the Textus Receptus (the Received Text) adds the so-called Comma Johanneum (the Johannine passage): “in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth” (NKJV). Bruce M. Metzger states: “The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate.” And he adds, “If the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission … by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts.”23


NKJV New King James Version

23 Metzger, Textual Commentary, pp. 715, 716.

Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of James and the Epistles of John, vol. 14, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 355.


Hiebert explains that "The statement in verse 7 (KJV) concerning the three heavenly witnesses [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one] , commonly known as the Johannine Comma, is an expansion of the Greek text upon the basis of the Latin and is devoid of any reliable textual support as a true part of the original. Hodges and Farstad in the edition of The Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text, generally supportive of the Textus Receptus, rightly omit verse 7 entirely. Erasmus did not find the words in any of the Greek texts upon which he based his first two editions of his Greek New Testament, but in the third edition, in a spirit of compromise, he reluctantly included them in his text. Accordingly they were contained in the Textus Receptus upon which the translators of the King James Version based their English rendering. Because verse 7 in the King James Version is not an authentic part of the Greek text, it is here not given any interpretative treatment (The Epistles of John- An Expositional Commentary).

Marshall another respected authority on First John writes "This form of wording appears in no reputable modern version of the Bible as the actual text; most editions adopt the same practice as in the NIV of relegating the extra words to a footnote, while some (such as the RSV and NEB) totally ignore them. The words in fact occur in none of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John, except for a few late and worthless ones, and are not quoted by any early church writers, not even by those who would have joyfully seized upon this clear biblical testimony to the Trinity in their attacks on heretics; they probably owe their origin to some scribe who wrote them in the margin of his copy of 1 John; later they were erroneously regarded as part of the text. Beyond any shadow of doubt the wording of the NIV text represents what John actually wrote." (The Epistles of John - The New International Commentary on the New Testament- I. Howard Marshall)

W E Vine - The seventh verse, given in the KJV is not part of the original. No Greek manuscript earlier than the fourteenth century contains the passage. No version earlier than the fifth century in any other language contains it. (The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine)

MacDonald adds that "It always disturbs some devout Christians to learn that parts of verses 7, 8, as found in the KJV and NKJV, are actually found in only a handful of Greek manuscripts of the NT. But this does not at all affect the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some people think it is important to retain the words because they mention the three Persons of the Trinity. However, the truth of the Trinity does not depend on this passage alone, but is found in many other portions of the Scriptures… Having stated in the previous verses the Person and work of Christ, John now goes on to state the trustworthiness of our belief in Him." (Believer's Bible Commentary)

Yes, the Comma Johanneum was proved to be a deliberate corruption to the Holy Scriptures perpetuated by Trinitarians to bolster their position. Let's be honest, there just isn't a lot of meat on the bone for the Trinity doctrine in the Bible. 1 John 5:7 has been stricken from every modern Bible I've seen.

 

[Free]

Yes, the Comma Johanneum was proved to be a deliberate corruption to the Holy Scriptures perpetuated by Trinitarians to bolster their position. Let's be honest, there just isn't a lot of meat on the bone for the Trinity doctrine in the Bible. 1 John 5:7 has been stricken from every modern Bible I've seen.

While I agree that the Johannine Comma is most likely a later addition to the text, there is substantial “meat on the bone” for the doctrine of the Trinity. If there wasn’t, it either wouldn’t have been developed in the first place or would have died out long ago.

 

[BB1956]

And the last part says that “the Word was God,” which is to say, God in nature.


Exactly.


Except that Yahweh himself says many times that he is the only God and there never will be another. The Son cannot be another god; there is no such other being. Besides, can you name one son that isn’t the same nature as his father?

 

[BB1956]

And the last part says that “the Word was God,” which is to say, God in nature.


Exactly.


Except that Yahweh himself says many times that he is the only God and there never will be another. The Son cannot be another god; there is no such other being. Besides, can you name one son that isn’t the same nature as his father?

Saying that the Word is the only begotten Son of God isn't the same as saying the Word is God or saying Jesus is God incarnate

 

[Free]

Saying that the Word is the only begotten Son of God isn't the same as saying the Word is God or saying Jesus is God incarnate

Even if that was the case, it is still clearly stated that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus. Can you name one son that isn’t the same nature as his father?

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
"And the last part says that “the Word was God,” which is to say, God in nature." [/QUOTE\]

At the end of his first letter to Christians the apostle John brings us to the understanding, namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that humans begotten of God are children of God with Jesus Christ. An American Translation presents the end of John’s letter as follows: “We know that no child of God commits sin, but that he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one cannot touch him. We know that we are children of God, while the whole world is in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us power to recognize him who is true; and we are in union with him who is true.” How? “Through his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Dear children, keep away from idols.”(1 John 5:18-21)
Since the One of whom Jesus Christ is the Son is “the true God and eternal life,” and since Jesus Christ is “he who was born of God” and who protects God’s other children, how are we to understand John 1:1, 2, of which there are differing translations? Many translations read: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Others read: “And the Word (the Logos) was divine.” Another: “And the Word was god.” Others: “And the Word was a god.”

Lets take first that popular rendering by the Authorized Version or Douay Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” Here a few lines deserve to be quoted from the book The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, by Count Leo Tolstoy, as follows:

If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.(Quoted from page 30, paragraph 2, of The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, as translated from the original Russian by Professor Leo Wiener, copyrighted 1904, published by Willey Book Company, New York, N.Y. The author is the famous Count Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist and religious philosopher, who died A.D. 1910.)

I don't believe the apostle John was so unreasonable as to say that someone (“the Word”) was with some other individual (“God”) and at the same time was that other individual (“God”).

John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.” So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings. In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. So John 1:1 means, at most that the Word was of God.

There is a book entitled “The Patristic Gospels, An English Version of the holy Gospels as they existed in the Second Century,” by Roslyn D’Onston. The title page tells how this version was put together. In John 1:1 this version reads: “and the Word was God.” But it has this footnote: “The true reading here is, probably, of God. See Critical Note.”—Page 118. (This Critical Note for John 1:1, found on page 156, says: There are three distinct reasons for believing of God to be the true reading. First, the manuscripts, as stated in that Note; secondly, the logical argument, because if the Evangelist meant ‘was God,’ there would have been no occasion for the next verse; thirdly, the grammatical construction of the sentence: for ‘was God,’ would he not have written ho lógos ēn theós, which would, at any rate, have been more elegant? But if we read it, kai theoû ēn ho lógos, the theoû is in its proper place in the sentence. I have refrained from correcting the text of this passage at the express desire of the late Bishop Westcott.”)
[The Greek word theoũ means “of God.”]
So why is it that translators disagree as to what the Word was—“God,” or, “god,” or, “a god”? It is because the Greek word for “God” is at the beginning of the statement although it belongs to the predicate, and it also does not have the definite article “the” in front of it.
Lets look at the first set of lines of the Greek text according to the fourth-century uncial manuscripts; and then on the second line, how the Greek text is pronounced in our language today; and on the third line a word-for-word English translation. Note Greek abbreviations for “God.”
ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ

EN ARKHEI ĒN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS

IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD

ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ

ĒN PROS TON THN, KAI THS ĒN HO LOGOS.

WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.

ΟΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ

HOUTOS ĒN EN ARKHEI PROS TON THN.

THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD.

Please note the omission of the definite article “THE” in front of the second “GOD.” On this omission Professor Moule asks: “Is the omission of the article in theós ēn ho lógos nothing more than a matter of idiom?” Then, in the next paragraph, Moule goes on to say:

On the other hand it needs to be recognized that the Fourth Evangelist [John] need not have chosen this word-order, and that his choice of it, though creating some ambiguity, may in itself be an indication of his meaning; and [Bishop] Westcott’s note (in loc.), although it may require the addition of some reference to idiom, does still, perhaps, represent the writer’s theological intention: ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theós”. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ five 27 (hóti huiòs anthrópou estín . . . ).’
[Quoted from page 116 of An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge; edition of 1953.]
The late Bishop Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, speaks of the “true humanity of Christ” and yet he argues that Jesus Christ was not “true humanity” but a mixture, a so-called God-Man. However, the Bishop says that the omission of the definite article the before the Greek word theós makes the word theós like an adjective that “describes the nature of the Word” rather than identify his person. This fact accounts for it that some translators render it: “And the Word was divine.” That is not the same as saying that the Word was God and was identical with God.
The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, shows the difference between theós with ho (the definite article) and theós without ho by printing his translation as follows: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was god.” (Second edition of 1947)

The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, of 1864, shows the difference by printing its translation as follows: “And the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God.”

Even translations printed in those ways indicate that the Word, in his prehuman existence in heaven with God, had a godly quality but was not God himself or a part of God. The Word was the Son of God. So the question arises, What would we call such a Son of God who first of all had this godly quality among the sons of God in heaven? We remember that Jesus Christ told the Jews that those human judges to whom or against whom God’s word came were called “gods” in Psalm 82:1-6.—John 10:34-36.

 

[BB1956]

can you tell us on here, if you are a Jehovah's Witness, or like them? What "Christian" are you?

Sorry, I thought I had put in my account details that I was a Jehovah witness

 

[BB1956]

Even if that was the case, it is still clearly stated that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus. Can you name one son that isn’t the same nature as his father?

I'm not my Dad, no matter how much people say I have the same nature as my Dad. I'm a completely different person and I'm not a third person of any godhead.
Most of those who believe in the Trinity doctrine try to teach me that the Word is God. So most Trinitarians I've spoken with believe the Word is God, they don't believe or teach that the Word is the only begotten Son of God. I can understand that when I speak with them because when the scriptures say at John 1:14 that the Word became flesh, which means the Word became human, they teach it was God who became flesh/human, not that it was the only begotten Son of God who became human. That's why they keep saying to me that Jesus is God incarnate. I'm going to disagree with anyone who tries to teach me that the Word isn't the only begotten Son of God and that it wasn't the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human.

 

[Free]

I'm not my Dad, no matter how much people say I have the same nature as my Dad. I'm a completely different person

That’s one way to side-step the obvious. Is your dad fully human and are you fully human?

Most of those who believe in the Trinity doctrine try to teach me that the Word is God. So most Trinitarians I've spoken with believe the Word is God, they don't believe or teach that the Word is the only begotten Son of God.

There is no difference. Why do you not accept all that John says in John 1:1 and only accept a certain interpretation of verses 14 and 18 (which likely doesn’t say what you think)? Trinitarians accept all of those.

I can understand that when I speak with them because when the scriptures say at John 1:14 that the Word became flesh, which means the Word became human, they teach it was God who became flesh/human, not that it was the only begotten Son of God who became human. That's why they keep saying to me that Jesus is God incarnate. I'm going to disagree with anyone who tries to teach me that the Word isn't the only begotten Son of God and that it wasn't the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human.

It’s all essentially the same. The Word is the preincarnate Son who then entered time and became flesh. Being that the Word was God, means the Son is God, and we can rightly say that God took on human form in the person of Jesus (Matt 1:23). Although, it should be made clear that it was the second person of the Trinity, the Word and Son, that became flesh.

 

[BB1956]

Your claim is doctrinally unsound.

The revelation of the New Testament is summed up in this statement:
Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH the LORD God


These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, (G2316) which is the church of the living God, (G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (G2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:14-16



View attachment 16180

Shown here is a page from the Codex Sinaiticus, a parchment manuscript of the fourth century C.E. The inset in the image includes the part of 1Ti 3:16 that many translations have rendered “He was manifested in the flesh,” or they have used similar expressions. However, as can be seen in the image, someone made an addition above the original text and added two letters to change the wording from “He” to “God.” (This addition was made later, probably in the 12th century C.E.)

A similar change can be found in some other early manuscripts. As a result, a number of Bible translations here read “God was manifest
[or “manifested”] in the flesh” (King James Version; New King James Version), giving the impression that God himself appeared as a human of flesh and blood. However, as some reference works point out, Greek manuscripts earlier than the eighth or ninth century C.E. do not support the use of the word “God” in their original wording. (For example see A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, by Roger. L. Omanson.) So a careful study of ancient manuscripts helps scholars to uncover the few erroneous readings that crept into later manuscripts.

 

[Runningman]

Shown here is a page from the Codex Sinaiticus, a parchment manuscript of the fourth century C.E. The inset in the image includes the part of 1Ti 3:16 that many translations have rendered “He was manifested in the flesh,” or they have used similar expressions. However, as can be seen in the image, someone made an addition above the original text and added two letters to change the wording from “He” to “God.” (This addition was made later, probably in the 12th century C.E.)

A similar change can be found in some other early manuscripts. As a result, a number of Bible translations here read “God was manifest
[or “manifested”] in the flesh” (King James Version; New King James Version), giving the impression that God himself appeared as a human of flesh and blood. However, as some reference works point out, Greek manuscripts earlier than the eighth or ninth century C.E. do not support the use of the word “God” in their original wording. (For example see A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, by Roger. L. Omanson.) So a careful study of ancient manuscripts helps scholars to uncover the few erroneous readings that crept into later manuscripts.

Yes, exactly. This is why most modern Bible just say "He was manifested" in was flesh because the original was obviously edited after the fact by someone else. That means "God was manifested in the flesh" isn't scripture in accordance with Jesus isn't God.

 

[follower]

Sorry, I thought I had put in my account details that I was a Jehovah witness

Unless you mean you were once a jw, and got saved, not Christian yet then, not by any description in line with God's Plan or in harmony with Scripture.
A pretender , wittingly or not. Deceived if you think jw are christians.
But realize there are a lot of pretenders online. More than truthful persons.

 

[BB1956]

Unless you mean you were once a jw, and got saved, not Christian yet then, not by any description in line with God's Plan or in harmony with Scripture.
A pretender , wittingly or not. Deceived if you think jw are christians.
But realize there are a lot of pretenders online. More than truthful persons.

I don't concern myself whether others believe I'm a Christian or not because I don't follow human beings. The scriptures clearly show that there will be people on this world who honestly and truly will believe themselves to be God's true servants but will not be, and these very people will be putting the actual true servants of God in prison or having them put to death and they will think themselves doing a sacred service for God when they do such things. There have been people who have always done this in the past. So people can speak out against JW all they want, but I don't concern myself with the judging of other human beings. I'll decide what I believe is true and that's is consistent with the scriptures when it comes to my personal life, so if I agree that what a certain group believes is consistent with the scriptures and another person doesn't, then that is his/her choice, but their choice doesn't decide my choice.

 

[follower]

That is even worse than before.
If you are a jw, then you are not in Christ Jesus, not following Jesus ,
but following the enemy of Jesus and/or just manmade stuff, opposed in purpose and substance to all Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

I don't concern myself whether others believe I'm a Christian or not because I don't follow human beings. The scriptures clearly show that there will be people on this world who honestly and truly will believe themselves to be God's true servants but will not be, and these very people will be putting the actual true servants of God in prison or having them put to death and they will think themselves doing a sacred service for God when they do such things. There have been people who have always done this in the past. So people can speak out against JW all they want, but I don't concern myself with the judging of other human beings. I'll decide what I believe is true and that's is consistent with the scriptures when it comes to my personal life, so if I agree that what a certain group believes is consistent with the scriptures and another person doesn't, then that is his/her choice, but their choice doesn't decide my choice.

Don't worry. They say the same exact things of the miscellaneous Protestants and Catholics who believe mostly the same things as each other, but differ on single points of doctrine. Historically, their churches have split over these things and anathematized one another.

I identify as a Biblical Unitarian myself. While I disagree with some things in JW doctrine, I do find they actually have good reasons for believing what they do and we are also in agreement about who God and Jesus are.

 

[BB1956]

That is even worse than before.
If you are a jw, then you are not in Christ Jesus, not following Jesus ,
but following the enemy of Jesus and/or just manmade stuff, opposed in purpose and substance to all Scripture.

Its always been my belief that there is one true God and that God sent his only begotten Son to mankind to die for mankind, then God resurrected his only begotten Son three days after his death, and if anyone of mankind exercises faith in this he/she will get everlasting life. No one is going to teach me different from that

 

[follower]

Its always been my belief that there is one true God and that God sent his only begotten Son to mankind to die for mankind, then God resurrected his only begotten Son three days after his death, and if anyone of mankind exercises faith in this he/she will get everlasting life. No one is going to teach me different from that

In other words, you are not a jw.

In-so-much as you are in Christ Jesus, continue always in Him, seeking Him as the Father Grants Grace to Live in Jesus.