JW Book: “What Can the Bible Teach Us?”

[BB1956]

Alfred Persson said,
"JWs believe people cease to exist when they die." [/QUOTE\]

JW's state the truth that when a human being(person) dies he/she ceases to exist as a living person. That truth is from the scriptures at Genesis 2:7 which states, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Nothing in this scripture at Genesis 2:7 shows that God gave a living soul or gave a living person to the human body that God had formed from the dust of the ground, so Genesis 2:7 doesn't teach that the breath of life that God blew into that human body was a living soul or living person that God blew into the human body that he had formed from the dust of the ground.
So this scripture here at Genesis 2:7 makes it clear that for there to be a living soul or living person the breath of life and the human body has to be united together. Once the breath of life is no longer united with the human body, no living soul or living person exists. For anyone to even imply that the breath of life is a living soul or living person that God blew into that human body that he formed from the dust of the ground, they will be incorrect.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred Persson said,
"JWs believe people cease to exist when they die." [/QUOTE\]

JW's state the truth that when a human being(person) dies he/she ceases to exist as a living person. That truth is from the scriptures at Genesis 2:7 which states, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Nothing in this scripture at Genesis 2:7 shows that God gave a living soul or gave a living person to the human body that God had formed from the dust of the ground, so Genesis 2:7 doesn't teach that the breath of life that God blew into that human body was a living soul or living person that God blew into the human body that he had formed from the dust of the ground.
So this scripture here at Genesis 2:7 makes it clear that for there to be a living soul or living person the breath of life and the human body has to be united together. Once the breath of life is no longer united with the human body, no living soul or living person exists. For anyone to even imply that the breath of life is a living soul or living person that God blew into that human body that he formed from the dust of the ground, they will be incorrect.

That ignores God's "breath of life" is not made of dust, it is a portion of God's Spirit that brings man into being, animates the entire being of man, body and soul.

Perhaps you heard of Aramaic Translations the Jews used in Christ's day. Because Hebrew had become somewhat unclear to many Jews, the Aramaic translations included "commentary" meant to explain the nuances in the Hebrew:

And the Lord God created man in two formations; and took dust from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him red, black, and white; and breathed into his nostrils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears. (Gen. 2:7 PJE)

Therefore, when reading this verse the Jews understood God created the entire being of man, body and soul.

Our Lord taught man has a body and soul, that humans cannot kill the soul, only the body:

'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna. (Matt. 10:28 YLT)

Notice how the Aramaic reference to "spirit" as enabling people see and hear the truth of God found its way into common expressions:

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14 NKJ)

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Alfred Perssson,

Psalm 8:3-6 is about "what is man", not Jesus

This in no way suggests Jesus being a "created being". This is referring to sonS of men, plural. Not THE Son of Man.

The writer to the Hebrews applies Psalm 8 to Jesus, and also 1 Corinthians 15:
Hebrews 2:5–10 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

1 Corinthians 15:22–28 (KJV): 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Look in NASB. The 'him' is lowercased. Therefore, there is no way that is referring to Jesus, but to common everyday sonS of men.

Hebrew does not have upper and lower case.

If Jesus is just a created, not THE CREATOR, this UNDERMINES the entire Gospel!!

Only in your theory.

These two you cited are discussing Jesus being born, PHYSICALLY. Nothing to do with His origins.

Jesus was a physical being, he is a complete man, and Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 speaks about his origin.

*AND* the power of the Highest.
Still 3 Persons 1 God.

Luke 1:31–35 (KJV): 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
There is only one God, Yahweh, God the Father also called here "the Highest". Verse 35 is a poetic parallel.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Alfred Persson]

Greetings Alfred Perssson,


The writer to the Hebrews applies Psalm 8 to Jesus, and also 1 Corinthians 15:

Your logic is confused. The subject is different. Jesus as a man is made lower than the angels to suffer death at Calvary. Colossians is speaking about Jesus as creator of all things, which is true only of God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

Jesus as a man is made lower than the angels to suffer death at Calvary.

Yes, Jesus was and is a man, and he was made or created lower than the Angels. There was no transfer of God the Son or Michael the Archangel into the womb of Mary.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Alfred Persson]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

Yes, Jesus was and is a man, and he was made or created lower than the Angels. There was no transfer of God the Son or Michael the Archangel into the womb of Mary.

Kind regards
Trevor

That's confused. Scripture says the man Jesus was made lower than the angels, and died for our sins. Scripture also says Jesus created all things, and in Him all things consist.

Scripture is always true, therefore both statements about Jesus are correct and your refusal to accept one of them, wrong.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

Scripture says the man Jesus was made lower than the angels, and died for our sins.

I do not accept your "dual" nature Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Alfred Persson]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

I do not accept your "dual" nature Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor

Not mine, its the teaching of Holy Scripture. The Son of Man was made lower than the angels, the Son of God created all things and therefore is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

Not mine, its the teaching of Holy Scripture. The Son of Man was made lower than the angels, the Son of God created all things and therefore is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

I consider that the human Jesus combined both functions and titles as the Son of Man through Mary, and the Son of God because the One God, Yahweh, God the father was the father of the human Jesus in the conception/birth process.

Matthew 1:18–21 (KJV): 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (Mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:26–35 (KJV): 26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

John 1:14 (KJV): 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I suggest that enough has been stated concerning the Unitarian and the Trinitarian views and any further discussion would be outside the purpose of this thread. Also the subject of the mortality of man versus the immortality of the soul has been mentioned and I agree with most aspects of the JW position on this, that man is mortal and returns to the dust. Most mornings I have been reading and meditating on a Psalm and during the week I looked at Psalm 88 and the following clearly teaches the mortality of man and that there is no consciousness after death:

Psalm 88:10–12 (KJV): 10 Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah. 11 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? 12 Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

Every phrase above confirms that man loses his consciousness and returns to the dust. I sometimes refer to Alec Motyer's translation and his textual comments which are usually very helpful. But as a Church of England minister he went to extraordinary lengths to negate the clear message of this Psalm about the mortality of man. The key reference on this subject is the following:

Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Alfred Persson]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

I consider that the human Jesus combined both functions and titles as the Son of Man through Mary, and the Son of God because the One God, Yahweh, God the father was the father of the human Jesus in the conception/birth process.

Matthew 1:18–21 (KJV): 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (Mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:26–35 (KJV): 26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

John 1:14 (KJV): 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I suggest that enough has been stated concerning the Unitarian and the Trinitarian views and any further discussion would be outside the purpose of this thread. Also the subject of the mortality of man versus the immortality of the soul has been mentioned and I agree with most aspects of the JW position on this, that man is mortal and returns to the dust. Most mornings I have been reading and meditating on a Psalm and during the week I looked at Psalm 88 and the following clearly teaches the mortality of man and that there is no consciousness after death:

Psalm 88:10–12 (KJV): 10 Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah. 11 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? 12 Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

Every phrase above confirms that man loses his consciousness and returns to the dust. I sometimes refer to Alec Motyer's translation and his textual comments which are usually very helpful. But as a Church of England minister he went to extraordinary lengths to negate the clear message of this Psalm about the mortality of man. The key reference on this subject is the following:

Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Kind regards
Trevor

I agree both "Son of Man" and "Son of God" titles refer to His human nature via the virgin birth caused by God's Holy Spirit.

BUT

"Son of God" must ALSO have reference to Jesus' nature BEFORE the virgin birth, because John writes:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14 NKJ)

Therefore, Jesus is the "Son of God" because Mary conceived by Holy Spirit, and He is the "the only begotten of the Father" separate and distinct from the virgin birth. His birth permitted us to "behold His glory", glory that He had prior to becoming flesh, when He was invisible to us.

You only got the first half right, the second half you ignore in your "consideration".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

I agree both "Son of Man" and "Son of God" titles refer to His human nature via the virgin birth caused by God's Holy Spirit.

That's encouraging.

"Son of God" must ALSO have reference to Jesus' nature BEFORE the virgin birth, because John writes:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14 NKJ)

I understand the phrase "the only begotten of the Father" relates to his birth as a human.

His birth permitted us to "behold His glory", glory that He had prior to becoming flesh, when He was invisible to us.

The Apostle John did not behold the glory that Jesus had before his birth, but he witnessed the glory of Jesus at the start and during his ministry. The "glory" relates to Jesus' quality of character, he was "full of grace and truth". This character was developed because of his special birth and his special education and Jesus' submission and delight in this education and growth in wisdom and understanding. This is a parallel concept to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8.

I find difficulty with the Trinitarian view and the JW view. How and when and to what extent did a Being called God the Son or Michael the Archangel merge with the child born. What part of the child born was God the Son or Michael the Archangel? Part of my problem is my view that man is a mortal human, and Jesus was not exceptionally different to any other human. We do not pre-exist. I am surprised with the JW endorsement of their view in the light that they do not believe in immortal souls.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Alfred Persson]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

That's encouraging.

I understand the phrase "the only begotten of the Father" relates to his birth as a human.

The Apostle John did not behold the glory that Jesus had before his birth, but he witnessed the glory of Jesus at the start and during his ministry. The "glory" relates to Jesus' quality of character, he was "full of grace and truth". This character was developed because of his special birth and his special education and Jesus' submission and delight in this education and growth in wisdom and understanding. This is a parallel concept to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8.

I find difficulty with the Trinitarian view and the JW view. How and when and to what extent did a Being called God the Son or Michael the Archangel merge with the child born. What part of the child born was God the Son or Michael the Archangel? Part of my problem is my view that man is a mortal human, and Jesus was not exceptionally different to any other human. We do not pre-exist. I am surprised with the JW endorsement of their view in the light that they do not believe in immortal souls.

Kind regards
Trevor

That understanding of "the only begotten of the Father" ignores the context. John just informed us God has many "children", therefore Jesus can't be "only begotten" in a human sense.

Moreover, it is the Holy Spirit who caused Mary to conceive, but John focuses on the Father and says Jesus is His only begotten. That distinguishes this from the virgin birth.

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said,`He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'" (Jn. 1:12-15 NKJ)

The glory John beheld cannot have been what Jesus did after His birth, because John specifies he "beheld...the glory of of the only begotten of the Father". That isn't what Jesus did, it what He was, the "the only Son of the Father". Son in a very unique way, "Only begotten" unlike any other "son of God".

7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say,`Show us the Father '?
10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (Jn. 14:7-11 NKJ)


I don't care about JW views of Christ as the archangel Michael, they are wrong. God never said any of the following things to any angel including Michael, but He said them all to Jesus Christ His only begotten Son:

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You "? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son "?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."
7 And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire."
8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. (Heb. 1:5-8 NKJ)

 

[BB1956]

That ignores God's "breath of life" is not made of dust, it is a portion of God's Spirit that brings man into being, animates the entire being of man, body and soul.

Perhaps you heard of Aramaic Translations the Jews used in Christ's day. Because Hebrew had become somewhat unclear to many Jews, the Aramaic translations included "commentary" meant to explain the nuances in the Hebrew:

And the Lord God created man in two formations; and took dust from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him red, black, and white; and breathed into his nostrils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears. (Gen. 2:7 PJE)

Therefore, when reading this verse the Jews understood God created the entire being of man, body and soul.

Our Lord taught man has a body and soul, that humans cannot kill the soul, only the body:

'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna. (Matt. 10:28 YLT)

Notice how the Aramaic reference to "spirit" as enabling people see and hear the truth of God found its way into common expressions:

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14 NKJ)

 

[BB1956]

Alfred Person said,
"That ignores God's "breath of life" is not made of dust, it is a portion of God's Spirit that brings man into being, animates the entire being of man, body and soul.

Perhaps you heard of Aramaic Translations the Jews used in Christ's day. Because Hebrew had become somewhat unclear to many Jews, the Aramaic translations included "commentary" meant to explain the nuances in the Hebrew:

And the Lord God created man in two formations; and took dust from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him red, black, and white; and breathed into his nostrils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears. (Gen. 2:7 PJE)[/QUOTE\]

First of all I don't believe our English versions of the Bible at Genesis 2: 7 are translated inaccurately. Since the word "became" is there in most English translation of the Bibles at Genesis 2:7 and not the word, "gave."
It wasn't A living soul or living person, that God blew into the human body that God formed from the dust of the ground. God didn't "give" that human body that he formed from the dust a living soul or living person that's separate and distinct from the human body. That would contradict the word "became," that's there in Genesis 2:7.

Since God’s inspired Word plainly says, “Man became a living soul,” man is a living soul, or is a living person. This means that when God blew the breath of life into the human body he had formed from the dust of the ground, it was that human body that God formed from the dust that "became" a living soul or living person. God didn't "give" the human body a living soul or living person. To be clear, God didn't put a living soul or living person inside the human body that was separate and distinct from that human body that God had formed from the dust.


A photostatic copy of Genesis 2:7 from, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament by G.R. Berry, copyright 1896-1897 gives us a literal word-for-word reading:

יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה

,ground the from dust [of out] man (the) God Jehovah

וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם

man (the) became and ;life of breath nostrils his in breathed and

So as I said, I don't believe our English versions of the Bible at Genesis 2: 7 are translated inaccurately.

Matthew 10:28 concerning human beings not able to destroy the soul, doesn't prove that human beings have immortal living souls or immortal living persons in their human bodies. If they did then those immortal living souls or immortal living persons that are inside the human body wouldn't be able to be destroyed. Immortality is defined as beyond death or indestructibility. A person who is immortal has a quality of life that is endless or beyond destruction. So the word soul at Matthew 10:28 isn't talking about some immortal living soul or immortal living person inside the human body that is separate and distinct from the human body.

Commenting on Matthew 10:28 in his book
Immortality of the soul or Resurrection of the dead?(French), Professor Oscar Cullman writes: "psykhe [soul] here does not mean the Greek concept of soul but should rather be translated life."
W.G. Kimmel also writes: "Matthew 10:28 does not seek to highlight the immortality of the soul, but underlines the fact that God alone can destroy not only earthly life but also heavenly life."

Man is not of the spirit, spiritual. Man is of the earth, earthy: “YHWH God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground.” (Genesis 2:7) The body that God created for man was made up of the elements taken from the earth and the atmosphere. It was not a spiritual body, and it cannot be spiritualized so as to become invisible and able to inhabit the spirit realm. It was a physical body, separate and distinct from a spiritual body such as the heavenly “sons of God” possess. Just as a Bible commentator of the first century C.E. said: “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.” The two kinds of bodies must not be confused, and the Bible does not confuse them, they're not the same. (1 Corinthians 15:44.) Man does not have a physical human body with a invisible living soul or invisible living person inside his human body that is separate and distinct from the human body.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Alfred Persson,

That understanding of "the only begotten of the Father" ignores the context. John just informed us God has many "children", therefore Jesus can't be "only begotten" in a human sense.

Yes, Jesus is the only begotten in a human sense because God the Father is the father of Jesus. We become children or sons of God by adoption through Jesus, when we believe the Gospel and are baptised:

1 Peter 1:18–25 (KJV): 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Moreover, it is the Holy Spirit who caused Mary to conceive, but John focuses on the Father and says Jesus is His only begotten. That distinguishes this from the virgin birth.

This is the most ridiculous Trinitarian claim that has ever been stated. It is based upon the fantasy that the Holy Spirit is a Person in the Trinity and therefore God the Father is not the father of Jesus, and that Jesus is not the son of God the Father but the son of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was conceived by "the power of the Highest", which is the power of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father.

The glory John beheld cannot have been what Jesus did after His birth, because John specifies he "beheld...the glory of of the only begotten of the Father". That isn't what Jesus did, it what He was, the "the only Son of the Father". Son in a very unique way, "Only begotten" unlike any other "son of God".

John never witnessed the glory of Jesus as the supposed pre-existent God the Son, he saw evidence of his perfect Divine glory and character of "grace and truth" during the Ministry of Jesus, and what he actually saw and witnessed was evidence of the unique birth and special education of Jesus, who was the Son of God by birth and education.

7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say,`Show us the Father '?
10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (Jn. 14:7-11 NKJ)

Yes, Jesus the Son of God fully revealed the character and works of the One God, Yahweh, God his Father.

I don't care about JW views of Christ as the archangel Michael, they are wrong. God never said any of the following things to any angel including Michael, but He said them all to Jesus Christ His only begotten Son:

I included the JWs as they have some similar ideas about incorporating a pre-existent Being into the child born to Mary. My comments were relevant to the subject of this thread, which is descending into an endless, repetitious Trinitarian vs Unitarian debate.

When was God the Son begotten and what does this really represent? Answer this with a meaningful response and I will continue discussion with you, otherwise the discussion is closed. I have never heard a meaningful answer to this.

Btw one of our senior expositors is going to speak on Colossians 1 on Wednesday night as part of his series on the whole book of Colossians, but I doubt he will cover the Trinitarian perspective, but mainly speak about the New Creation in Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[KV-44-v1]

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

1 Corinthians 15:22–28 (KJV): 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

So? God seems to be applying the same things to Jesus as people. This is a false dichotomy fallacy. Just because Jesus was in human body, does NOT mean thats all He was. Jesus-belittlers always forget about God's omnipotence. 100% man 100% Divine. Jesus-reducers are arbitrary and unBiblical.

Did you know that islam also belittles Jesus by attacking His Divinity????? May as well quote (and believe!) the Koran!!
Your worldview is just abt NO DIFFERENT (except for less violence) from Islam! How are we going to differentiate from Islam and Chrislam?? I'll take Biblical Christianity, not fake compromised "chrislam", thx very much.

Hebrew does not have upper and lower case.

So? Obviously, the Biblical translators knew much more and were more willing to be influenced by God rather than Mohammed.

Only in your theory.

Nah. In reality.

Do you REALLY think a mere mortal with NO Divinity saved us?? If Jesus was not God then how is Christianity, in essence, different from all the "works save" religions?? In the end of the works save view, man saves self. Not God. In the end of your compromised view, a man saves other men. Still not God.
But in reality, GOD saved us. Him being in a human body doesn't negatively impact.

Did you notice its always the CULTS that belittle Jesus???? that should be a massive red flag to "Jesus not God" belief.
if they believed He was God, they wouldn't have as much excuse to be cults.

Jesus said there was no One (perfectly morally) good except God.
Did Jesus sin in your worldview?? YES or NO?
So, to maintain your beliefs, either Jesus was lying or stupid. What a moronic worldview you have!!
evidently, your start point is MANS word, not God's Word.

Jesus was a physical being, he is a complete man, and Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 speaks about his origin

What does this mean?
JESUS was God in a body. Particularly, the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
Luke is talking about the origin of His body. Who is the "us" in Genesis?? ("let US make man in OUR image")?

Tell me, how does the kingdom of a measly physical being have no end?? That is silly nonsense. Incongruent with the Bible!
the only way "His Kingdom has no end" is if the Kingdom is GOD'S KINGDOM.

THE VERY VERSES YOU CITE RIP YOUR CASE TO BITS.

Matthew? Again, HIS BODY. your crazy worldview is a wool over your eyes.
Tell me, how a mortal with NO DIVINITY (allegedly) would save anyone from any sins.
Nothing in the Gospel would make sense if Jesus wasn't God.

 

[KV-44-v1]

When was God the Son begotten and what does this really represent? Answer this with a meaningful response and I will continue discussion with you, otherwise the discussion is closed. I have never heard a meaningful answer to this.

When was Jesus begotten?

[[What do you mean by begotten?? When He was created? No, He always existed.

Or - when He was physically born? We don't really know. Should we? If yes, why? Knowing WHEN Jesus came into the world doesn't seem to have much bearing on the Faith.]]

What does it (it=begotten) represent?? If going by the 2 things in brackets above, it is literal, not a "represent".

What does the "when" represent?? Say Jesus was born in between 1 AD and 4 BC. Why would Him being born in that time frame (for example) represent anything??

 

[KV-44-v1]

Not mine, its the teaching of Holy Scripture. The Son of Man was made lower than the angels, the Son of God created all things and therefore is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Some posters apparently seem to think mingling Christianity with islam or the cults (J.W.'s are one!) is a great idea. if not, why are they pushing the same lie about Jesus that islam & them are pushing??

 

[KV-44-v1]

There is only one God, Yahweh, God the Father also called here "the Highest"

Nobody here is claiming that there are 2 God the Father 's.
There are 3 Persons (but 1 God) in the Trinity, not 4 Persons.
Thanks for repeating what Bible believers believe.

 

[hawkman]

Moderator note .

TOS1.3: Use self control and focus on reconcilliation when discussing differences. Address the issue, not the person. Do not make derogatory personal remarks or you will be removed from the thread.

TOS1.1: Grant others the courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. As best as one is capable, speak truth in love.; ( Mathew 7:12, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

Answer this with a meaningful response and I will continue discussion with you, otherwise the discussion is closed.

You can drop out of the discussion you started at anytime and others can start at anytime , that is the way it works around here .