At last, and maybe previously, the source of some at least of your errors is here revealed.we are also in agreement
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
At last, and maybe previously, the source of some at least of your errors is here revealed.we are also in agreement
Such as?At last, and maybe previously, the source of some at least of your errors is here revealed.
Sorry, I thought I had put in my account details that I was a Jehovah witness
I could not resist adding a different perspective to both the Trinitarian and the JW views. I consider that Jesus is created. He was MADE a little lower than the Angels, and as such he is the firstborn of the New Creation, and thus very much a created Being:the Bible FACT, that Jesus Christ CANNOT be "created", and in any way "inferior" to God the Father!
Greetings again SolaScriptura,
I could not resist adding a different perspective to both the Trinitarian and the JW views. I consider that Jesus is created. He was MADE a little lower than the Angels, and as such he is the firstborn of the New Creation, and thus very much a created Being:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
He fulfills the role assigned to Adam who failed. Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. He is not Michael the ArchAngel or a similar Angel, neither is he God the Son.
Kind regards
Trevor
how about dealing directly with what I have said in post #63?
If you insist, but I was only trying to highlight a bit of disagreement and move on. This was partly in response to some of your very fixed ideas on a number of items.There seems to be never ending discussion on some of these topics. That is why I added a smile: :neutralCan you clear up a clear contradiction in your own "bible" translation, The New World Translation?
In John 1:1, this version reads, "and the Word was a god"
There are many descriptions attributed to Yahweh, God the Father and these titles and attributes are also applicable to Jesus. Yahweh is a Shepherd, and a Saviour and many other titles and attributes. I understand that "Mighty God" is the Hebrew phrase "El Gibbor" and this title is attributable to both Yahweh and also will be applied to Jesus, the child that was to be born, in the future. I will not strictly define the meaning of "Gibbor", but "El" is a Divine title used in many contexts. Would you like to expound the word "Gibbor"?How can Jesus Christ be ... "Mighty God", exactly as the Father, or Jehovah is?
Your use of a simple, shallow, erroneous syllogism here is far from useful. You are also hiding behind the English meaning of the word "God", rather than looking at "El" in both contexts.the FACT, that we have TWO distinct Persons, Jesus Christ AND the Father, as Mighty God, which destroys any notion that God is "Unitarian"!
Greetings again SolaScriptura,
If you insist, but I was only trying to highlight a bit of disagreement and move on. This was partly in response to some of your very fixed ideas on a number of items.There seems to be never ending discussion on some of these topics. That is why I added a smile: :neutral
I differ with the JWs on John 1:1 and their NWT rendition "a god". My guess is the JW position could be historical as to the NWT "a god", as I suggest that some one at one stage noticed the interlinear portion of the Diaglott, and despite the translation by the Daiglott they misunderstood this, and then some JW misused this rendition, and the JWs have ever since gone to extraordinary lengths to justify this "inspired" comment or "translation", in the same manner as they justify many of their wrong doctrines and also erroneous portions of the NWT, e.g. Genesis 3:1. Their stubbornness is based on the idea that their GB is Spirit guided, and anything that has appeared in major literature MUST be correct (until grudgingly they decide on some "new light" and let the old idea fade away in newer literature - sometimes to the astonishment of some of the older members). So on John 1:1, I do not agree with the JWs, or the Trinitarians.
There are many descriptions attributed to Yahweh, God the Father and these titles and attributes are also applicable to Jesus. Yahweh is a Shepherd, and a Saviour and many other titles and attributes. I understand that "Mighty God" is the Hebrew phrase "El Gibbor" and this title is attributable to both Yahweh and also will be applied to Jesus, the child that was to be born, in the future. I will not strictly define the meaning of "Gibbor", but "El" is a Divine title used in many contexts. Would you like to expound the word "Gibbor"?
Your use of a simple, shallow, erroneous syllogism here is far from useful. You are also hiding behind the English meaning of the word "God", rather than looking at "El" in both contexts.
Kind regards
Trevor
The following is one paragraph from TWOT concerning El Gibbor:No one can ever disprove the FACT that Jesus Christ is MIGHTY GOD which is the same as YHWH
Greetings again SolaScriptura,
The following is one paragraph from TWOT concerning El Gibbor:
It is not surprising that in such a society God was often depicted as a warrior. God is the true prototype of the mighty man, and if an earthly warrior’s deeds are recounted, how much more should God’s be. Thus the psalmists recount God’s mighty acts (106:8; 145:4, 11, 12; etc.) and in various places those attributes which a warrior-king might be expected to possess—wisdom, might, counsel and understanding—are attributed par excellence to God (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14). Isaiah (9:6; cf. 10:21) indicates that these will be the attributes of the Coming King, whose name is the Mighty God as well as the Prince of Peace, but he also makes it plain that justice and righteousness will accompany his might (cf. Ps 89:13–14 [H 14–15]).
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (p. 148)
Yes, you are using a faulty syllogism.
Kind regards
Trevor
Yes I am a JW. JW's have always believed that there is only 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. This that I have just stated I have always believed and what JW's have always believed.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.
Yes I am a JW. JW's have always believed that there is only 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. This that I have just stated I have always believed and what JW's have always believed.
the 9th posy i am assuming is of the prophecy of isaiah saying prepare the way, so John the baptist did prepare the way for Yehovah, it is when he baptized Yeshua and Yehovah descended upon him as a dove, so no my understanding explains it quite well. but still in rev 3:12 Yeshua says his God, so Yeshua has a God that he worships and the other fact is HE has a new name, but his God does not. explain this#9 is very clear that you are wrong!
Even demons believe and they shudder knowing the terror they are facing, the judgment they are under and can never escape.Yes I am a JW. JW's have always believed
His body was created . He is and always has been UNcreated, eternal.I consider that Jesus is created.
What is better? Please choose one.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.
Better in what way ?What is better? Please choose one.
I do not accept that Jesus had two natures. He was born a human and I do not accept that he was a merging of a human and a Deity. I do not accept the concept of immortal souls, or some immaterial spirit where our thoughts are preserved after death, or that these are the centre of our present thoughts. Our brain, part of our body, does the thinking. If we hit our head hard enough we will be knocked out. If the brain is starved of oxygen for more than 10 minutes, then there is no full recovery. I believe in the resurrection, not immortal souls that go to heaven or hell at death.His body was created . He is and always has been UNcreated, eternal.
God , nor understand His Power, nor accept His Word.I do not accept
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.)