Shiwiii

2 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Does anyone?

 "the Triune reality of God is ultimately beyond human reasoning. As St. Augustine remarked, “If you understood Him, it would not be God” 

Carl E. Olson. Editor of Catholic World Report and Ignatius Insight.

if one does not, then they should not profess to know. 

Your wall of text has discouraged me into responding, partly because you introduce more information that does not directly involve the topic and I feel this is to distract any reader into actually remembering what the topic of discussion is about. 

there are so many things in your response that need addressing, and to break it down into realistic portions would create so many threads on this board that no one else would be able to post. I think you do this on purpose, meaning write more that necessary, to somehow try and overwhelm whomever it is you are speaking with so they just leave and then you can say "well they couldn't answer" and assume you have it all correct. it is a typical tactic of jws in general, instead of staying on track, add additional material to bury the original question. Anyway.......

I am not going to go through your whole post and pull out everything to respond to, but I'll pick a couple. 

On 11/8/2018 at 11:37 PM, Space Merchant said:

Because it is true that Trinitarians believe all 3, in this case, all 3 Gods make up 1 God, thus making them Triune, at the same time they do not believe such because of the whole aspect of distinct persons, therefore when it comes to the verse in question Jesus was not of the Triune God, especially if someone were to accept the claim that Jesus raised himself.

right here you have demonstrated you do not comprehend what the trinity is, nor what trinitarians believe. There is not 3 Gods. I would explain it to you, but I believe that you would play dumb or hold fast to your idea that is already formed. Either way, I suggest you research what the trinity is, as trinitarians believe it. You have already mentioned that you have spoken to James White or someone close to him, that is a great place to start as James DOES know. 

On 11/8/2018 at 11:37 PM, Space Merchant said:

You will have to be more specific on what in Isaiah you want to discuss about.

On 11/8/2018 at 11:37 PM, Space Merchant said:

That being said, I will be happy to discus about Isaiah,

Isaiah 44, who is recorded as speaking in verses 21-28?  Is it not YHWH? 

6 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

I've already made mention to what the Temple actually is, granted that verse 21 tells us he was speaking about the temple of his body. For he was in noway talking about the Temple of Herod and the Jews themselves did not understand what he was talking about. Regarding the body of the Christ, that is God's Temple for the very fact God dwells in the Christ as he does with the early Christians.

why even mention this again? We are in agreement. Jesus spoke of His body, His physical body. 

7 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

John 2:19 only states that Jesus said to the people Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

So either Jesus did it or He did not, you are claiming He did not. That is what you have been saying all along. Ok, no problem. I see that you as well as others here do not take this scripture to mean what Jesus said, but instead somehow claim He didn't really mean it by means of another verse that states God did. So then what you are saying is Jesus is a liar. I don't mean to put it so harshly, but it IS what you are saying. 

11 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

I know the Christology of Trinitarians, granted I had dealt with them many times before, among them being James White followers or that of the KJV-Onlyist crow or the FLDS and so forth. Trinitarians believe that the Father is God, that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, thus making up the Triune God, after all, you yourself stated each to be God thus making up the Triune itself of the Godhead. granted, the Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit making up this Triune God. Furthermore, this is seen as some centralized mystery in the Trinity Doctrine.

But if that was the case, you just stated that Jesus raised himself, for if Jesus indeed raise himself, the dead rising themselves out of death, how would you explain the involvement of the Father or God using His Spirit to raise Jesus if the claim is already posed of Jesus somehow raising himself out of the pangs of death?

It can be seen as a contradiction for if let's say for example I did agree with you, Jesus raised himself from the Dead, in this sense, I'd have to totally ignore the whole passage and it's references and accept this verse without merit, it would put me in contradiction to the very true fact that Jesus was able to do nothing from himself and be a list of other things and it would counter fact cross-references and testimonies made in Scripture. And quite frankly, I want to take all Scripture into consideration, as with the parallel to this case regarding the Mark of Jonah and surely Jonah wasn't able to bring himself out of the big fish by his own hand.

If you have this grasp, then why did you make such comments about the Father not being the "triune God" etc. That is interjecting a fourth being from the context of your argument you posted earlier.

You are attributing Jonah and Jesus now? Really? Do you not believe that Jesus can/could do things mere mortal could not? Sure He placed limitation upon Himself when taking for form of man (Phil 2:7), but that didn't mean He couldn't use His power for whatever He wanted (John 2:7-11). 

irregardless, this is just one instance we are discussing, this John 2:19. It does clearly state Jesus said He would raise Himself. You really can't ignore that without some sort of bias. We can gladly choose other verses to discuss and why I believe that Jesus IS God, but we just happen to be on this one. So with that being said, sure lets take all of scripture and continue. 

20 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

So if that was the case why was it that Jesus cursed a fig tree or not have known a ill woman had touched her?

More importantly why was Jesus corruptible, thus making him susceptible to death whereas the Hebrew Old Testament tells you God himself cannot die and is incorruptible, even brought up in the Greek New Testament?

God cannot die, as the bible even tells you. Jesus could because unlike YHWH, Jesus was under Shaliach Principle, came to earth as a man by means of a woman named Mary, therefore he was able to taste death, even expire only to be resurrected and made incorruptible.

Again, Jesus allowed restrictions upon Himself while a man.  Of course God cannot die, thus the very reason why Jesus was subjected to become a man, to show us how we are suppose to act/be obedient to God and live according to Gods purpose AND so we can know that death is not the end. Our bodies die/decay, but our spirit belongs to God and will live after our bodies are dust again. God does not cease if Jesus, as a man dies, because our spirit as well as God's Spirit lives on no matter what. 

Jesus is very much YHWH.

29 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

But did you not just say the following: By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit.

And

On 11/5/2018 at 12:03 PM, Shiwiii said:

To me, the evidence shows me that yes, Jesus IS God as well as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

If Jesus and only He, had raised himself from the dead, there would be no mention of God or the Holy Spirit, but only by Jesus' own hand and if HE will do this as you said, why bring up the Father or the Holy Spirit if the concept of the Triune God is not at work according to the Trinity? After all, you said the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, so surely all 3 persons would take part in the Resurrection and not Christ Jesus alone.

We are not going off in a tangent because regarding the Temple of his Body it is of the passage itself - that is if you take into account the whole passage or one verse.

Who said that Jesus and ONLY He raised Himself? No one, and certainly not me. I would be making God a liar by making such a statement based on the very scriptures you brought up. 

31 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

so surely all 3 persons would take part in the Resurrection and not Christ Jesus alone.

yes

32 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

I am glad you made mention of this verse because here we see Jesus affirming the Shema, which is to be heard by God to affirm that the one who professes the Shema Law HAS a God. And we know that Jesus, as with Paul, affirmed Shema and as others have also even in testimony.

It does not destroy the list of the laws granted that Jesus is the mediator between God and the men he made the Covenant with as seen in 1 Timothy 2:5. We are of Spiritual Israel and the Law still hangs on in the New Covenant.

Clearly if you are serving God, you are in application to that Law and I totally agree with Jesus.

No it does not destroy the law, you are correct, but it does destroy the laws that the Jews enacted that were above the law (John 15:25).  That was all I was saying. The law stands and will stand just as Jesus said it would  (Matt 5:17)

41 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Proskuneo can man many things but Jesus was never religious worshiped. If we are to say he was worshiped, what of Lot tot he Angels? Abraham to the Hittites, surely the latter isn't God yet worship and homage was done - it does not equate to religious worship. That being said an act of worship and or homage does not make that God, and those who religious worship and give self sacrifice to God know of whom they truly render worship and servitude to.

I gave you examples of angles/the living creatures of Revelation worshiping Jesus just as God the Father. You're trying to divert what I said to mean honor given to Abraham etc. Not the same and you know it. 

44 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Granted that when the disciples saw Jesus he was like a Spirit, having a Spirit Body if you will. And no the bible even tells you of his Spirit Body and the fact Paul spoken of him as if he was an angel -malak.

So Paul is the lair or perhaps Luke?

Furthermore, As a Spirit, Jesus was able to appear/disappear suddenly instantly as seen in Luke 24:31 and John 20:19, 26 and he was not recognized y those who followed him until he spoke with them and made it known as seen in Luke 24:30, 31, 35 and John 20:14-16, 21:6, 7 - and I am sure we were, as seen here, agree with the gospel of John.

Jesus said Himself :

Luke 24:" 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Jesus spoke this AFTER He was resurrected. So is Jesus a liar? 

57 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

So if I were to say do you agree with Peter, John, Paul's testimony of who the True God is, after all you posted Matthew 22:36-40 thus we see Jesus affirming Shema, which in this sense if you understand the Law of the Jews is affirming that the one who profess Shema has a God.

Clearly in the Scriptures it is silly to say and or even fathom that God has a God.

You also will fall into a mistake if you go just the next verse or two over regarding the Light of this World, moreover, other John's (John the Baptist) Testimony of the Christ.

God isn't a mystery, nor is the Christ granted what Paul conveyed in Ephesians of what has been revealed.

So what you are saying is that when Jesus was here on the Earth, He was only a man? That's fair if that is your belief, however it is not mine. I believe He had a dual nature at that point both God and man. The man had a God and this was to be an example for us. 

1 Tim 3:16 says that godliness is a mystery. 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

therefore if you are making the claim it is a man doctrine you have to back it up.

actually no, those who claim such must provide proof. Until then it is an opinion based on no scriptural support and thus man made. 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

All things were made through Jesus.

God the Father takes delight in the Son; The Son rejoices over the works and marvels of the Father's hands.

It may fit perfectly to you, but the cross-references and what that Light is pretty much counters that.

I can see here we are goign to keep going back and forth saying the same things about this verse (John2:19) regardless if it is cross referenced to Acts or not does not diminish the fact  that Jesus said it, you agreed He said it, you just don't believe He meant it the way He said it. 

Lets move on about John 1:3, in particular not the verse John 1:3 but my supporting scriptures that back up that Jesus in fact did create everything and was not created and is God.

Who is speaking in Isaiah throughout and being recorded?  The Hebrew scriptures state it is YHWH, do you agree? 

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We can agree if you can agree in the context in which it is intended. Not as a creator or co-creator, but someone who shared in God’s creative work.

If we meet your understanding, once again we would have to nullify scripture to accept that interpretation. Moses would have made no sense, Genesis 1:2 and the psalmist would be mistaken, Psalms 33:6, Psalms 36:9

When the Pharisees went to test Jesus for the grounds of divorce, what was Jesus reply, Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus used the phrase, “created them” why would Jesus need to speak to the Pharisees as a third person. Under the Trinity, it becomes confusing. We know God is not a God of confusion, then why oppose God’s words. This ideologically is adding to scripture, which God forbids.

How can Trinity under these circumstances be of sound judgment? We can agree that God used Michael as an instrument to continue his creation.

All scriptures mentioned, attest to that fact. That Jesus shared in Gods creative work, and God used Jesus as an instrument for that creation.

there is no nullification anywhere, John 1:3 states clearly that Jesus created everything that has been created. This does not make any scripture mistaken, only the interpretation made by some. 

The confusion is there because those who are so opposed to the idea that God can do anything and be everywhere. There is a common mistake that people have in regards to the trinity, they only have heard a slight idea of it but profess to know it has to be wrong. 

Michael? hardly. Michael is and was and will for ever be Michael, not Jesus nor the Son of God. This notion of Michael being Jesus is not found within scripture, it is made up by men. If you'd like, start another thread on this topic and I'll discuss it. 

I have no problem with Jesus sharing in the creation work, or having been used and an instrument. John 1:3 makes it clear that He did create everything that has ever been created. So it fits. 

56 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Nowhere does in the bible does it state Jesus is God because the verse tells you of what he met by the Temple, which is the Temple of his Body. For if Jesus was indeed God, it would discredited the very fact that in other verses it is made known that God also dwells in True Christians as he dwells in Jesus, the fullness of deity that dwells in him and them, according to the verses.

The additional verses listed above, several of them, if not most, cross-references with each other regarding that passage, not only does it show that it I.D.s both the Father and Son, it shows you clearly that God had a role in Jesus' resurrection, for the Bible speaks of God as being the life-giver, and in giving life he does to the Son, and giving the authority and power to the Son so that he too can resurrect a great multitude of people and I agree with what was said to Jesus in the same gospel, that whatever he asks from God, God will give to him.

Of course the verse tells us what He meant by the temple, at this time we're not talking about the temple, we're talking about who was going to raise it. The verse says Jesus. This particular point is one of a few that I base my belief on . If Jesus said He would raise Himself, He is either a liar, or it is true.  We know that Jesus is not a liar, so it HAS to be true. The verse quotes Jesus saying that He would raise Himself. This, coupled with the other verses that state God would raise Him, leaves a tough position for those who claim that Jesus isn't God because of the direct parallel between who raises Jesus. There is no denying that Jesus said He would raise Himself in 3 days according to John. 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

That being said, in Trinity doctrine, the Father is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Father. For one to say Jesus raised himself is also to say the Father did not raise Jesus because Jesus is not the Father, or perhaps to say the Father raised Jesus is also to say that Jesus did not raise himself.

To profess that Jesus raised himself from the dead is also to say it was not the Triune God who raised Jesus since Jesus is not the Triune being and the Triune being is not Jesus, for what it lands in another factor of confusion when a claim is made that Jesus raised himself and then insist that two other persons raised that same "himself". 

I think you may have an idea of what the trinity is, but lack understanding of how it works. By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit. There are verses which we have quoted each other in this thread that testify to all three being attributed to raising Jesus. Since the scriptures cannot be contradictory then there has to be an explanation and all of those verses have to be true. 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Another factor is that YHWH himself, is incorruptible, not like a man or a son of man, and only YHWH, all of which the Bible makes it clear of several times, furthermore, is identified as the Father, as well as God, and by the Law, this is stated as well, something of which I believe I stated before.

and yet, many many scriptures are quoting the OT about YHWH and attributes those same qualities or actions to Jesus. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Well I suggest you make more research regarding the Bible and not wait around for Judgement.

so what you are saying is research until I come to your conclusion? like I said, if I am wrong for taking God's word directly as it is clear to me, so be it. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

John 2:19 does not amount to any evidence that Jesus is God at all (especially if you take in the meaning of his words along with the references), he speaks of the Temple of His Body, and the very fact Jesus, while on earth was corruptible, capable of dying and has died, thus showing you that he was like us of mankind, who was indeed born a Jew into the Law (Galatians 4:4).

To me it most certainly does, by means of Jesus saying He Himself would raise Himself. You do have to admit that this IS what Jesus said He would do. 

We can go off on another tanget about the temple and His body, but we'll leave that for a different thread.

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

for John 1:3, it is also best to carefully consider John 1:5, the Light shines in the darkness, it is obviously apparent that these words are referring to the ministry of Jesus  as seen in John 3:19-21, 8:12, 9:5 and 12:35-36, granted the very first chapter of John is John's Introductory. Moving into verse 4, we also read that life was in the Word and that life was the Light of men. It should be taken into consideration here that John is not referring to the Genesis act of creation at this point. The true Light which enlightens every man was presently coming into the world (John 1:9). The last part of verse 3, in connection with verse 4 indicates that life and light came into existence by means of the Word. (Colossians 1:15, 16).

With this information in view, it is obviously apparent that John 1:3 is not referring to the Genesis act of creation but to all the things that came to be through the proclamation of the Word, through the ministry of Jesus. For this reason, Jesus cried, It is finished (it has been accomplished) later down the road when he was killed by means of Crucifixion; just as we find God was finished all His works in the Genesis act of creation, the same regarding the one sent by means of Shaliach Principle. Jesus' ministry was the beginning of the new creation of God, whereas our risen Lord, Christ Jesus, is the first of the firstfruits of that new creation (as well as the one Firstborn out of death), the beginning of the creation of God, mainly when it can be understood what the new earth and new heavens entails regarding said new creation.

You are making it waaay more difficult then necessary. It reminds me of how the Jews back in that time had rules upon rules that they developed based on their extensive knowledge of the Law. When Jesus came, He made it very simple and said so in Matt 22:36-40. This destroyed the whole list of laws the jews had created. I feel that you are using the duality of scripture (where a verse has more than one meaning and application) to dismiss what is being said. To me it is crystal clear that Jesus created everything that has ever been created. That is what John 1:3 says. It looks as though we are never going to get around this because it makes it too hard for you to accept what is exactly written, and this is because it does not fit your view point. I get it. Instead it has to be assumed that John meant something else because by John stating that Jesus created all things it makes Him God, and we just can't have that. Nevermind that Jesus is to be worshiped and Honored just as the Father (Revelation 4:9-11 and 5:11-14). 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Indeed, but the Temple in question is His Body, the Body of our Lord, Christ Jesus, in turn the Father's Temple due to the very fact God does his Purpose and Will through his Son. That temple of which they were thinking about was The Temple of Herod.

I agree, but don't even get started on "His body", because jws do not believe He was resurrected in the same body. Thus making Jesus a liar. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Yes, the Holy Spirit is mention in both verses, but you have one instance regarding the Christ regarding him being risen on the 3rd day and the other regarding those who are ministers. Because the Holy Spirit is mention in both instances, does not equate the two into being the same event, despite Holy Spirit being one of 90 or so occurrences in various instances in the Greek New Testament.

I NEVER said it was the same event. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

If so why state Jesus raised himself when the Bible itself has made it clear he had expired?

Because that is what Jesus said HE would do. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

You sure? Can you show me Acts 13:2 references regarding John 2:19? Regarding my response to you is as followed: [Acts 13:2 focuses on such ones ministering for God. The references for this verse points to Ac 9:15 and 1 Timothy 2:7, even while outlined nothing points back in references to Jesus being risen from the tomb....], I do not see Acts 13:2 pointing back to John 2:19 - anywhere, even while outlined.

• https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jhn/2/1/t_corr_999019
• https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=John+2%3A19
• https://biblehub.com/john/2-19.htm

The only verses Acts 13:2 cross-references to and points back to even in outline form is
Deuteronomy 10:8, 1 Samuel 2:11, Daniel 9:3, Matthew 9:38, Luke 2:37, 1 Timothy 2:7 (as mentioned), 2 Timothy 1:11, Acts 8:29, 9:15 (as mentioned), 22:21, 14:26, Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 1:15, 2:8-9, Ephesians 3:7, Hebrews 5:4, etc and dozens more, including the ones above amounting to a total of 41 verses (with 1 Chronicles 16:37-43 bringing the count up by 47 verses).

That being said, even regarding Acts 13:2, both John 2:19 and Romans 18:11, is nowhere to be found, even in cross-references without outline in the Bible itself does not say and it only points back to the 2 verses already mentioned, granted that both instances were and are entirely different, despite the Spirit of God being mentioned in both instances.

And the bible informs us the Christ had expired and God had a hand in his resurrection.

yes I am sure, because that is what John 2:19 says. 

13 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I will have to disagree with you on this one. by understanding the nature in which Christ meant in 1 Corinthians 8:6

we can understand the intent in Colossians 1:16. another text favored by Trinitarians. However, you have admitted this is how you wish to interpret scripture. Then is no need to continue.  We will be judged by our creator regardless. God made it a choice. You have chosen. Now it's up to the rest of us, to adequately learn scripture from our heavenly father Jehovah, through his son Jesus Christ, and may we duel in God's Holy Spirit.

By all means please show me a scripture that corrects my thinking and makes John 1:3 clear as crystal. 1 Cor 8:6 does not solve the perceived contradiction. 

Do you at least agree that John 1:3 says that Jesus created everything that was created and without Him nothing was created? 

22 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

• God raised him up again, having loosed the pangs of death, since it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:24).
• This Jesus God raised up again. (Acts 2:32). 
• You put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses. (Acts 3:15). 
• Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 4:10). 
• The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. (Acts 5:30). 
• God raised him up on the third day (Acts 10:40). 
• God raised Him from the dead... God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, "You are My son; Today I have begotten You." He raised him up from the dead, no longer to return to corruption... He whom God raised did not undergo corruption (Acts 13:30-37). 
• His Son, who came to be out the seed of David according to the flesh, fixed son of God in power by the resurrection out of the dead, according to the Spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 1:3-4) 
• Those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. (Romans 4:24). 
• Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)
• But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 8:11).
• God raised him from the dead. (Romans 10:9). 
• Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. (1 Corinthians 6:14). 
• Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. (1 Corinthians 15:15). 
• We also believe, therefore we also speak knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus.
• (2 Corinthians 4:13-14). 
• The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.... He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenlies (Ephesians 1:17-20). 
• You turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead. (1 Thessalonians 1:10) 
• ...through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:21)
• God the Father, who raised him from the dead. (Galatians 1:1).

I cannot argue that these clearly state God raised Jesus. It is my personal belief that Jesus is YHWH with my support from scripture. I thank you for always providing scripture to support your position as well Space.  The only thing I can do is accept also that John 2:19 states Jesus did it. You can dismiss this account in John 2 if you'd like with other scriptures, but the fact of the matter is I cannot and to me scripture cannot contradict itself, so there HAS to be some way to reconcile these within what is written. So far nothing in scripture shows me otherwise. 

If I die and God says to me "you dummy, that's not what it meant" well, then I can only ask for forgiveness for taking His word literally where it is clear as crystal to me. To me, the evidence shows me that yes, Jesus IS God as well as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. That is what I will be judged on when it comes time I guess.  

25 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

The only factor that plays against you is the fact Jesus was/is able to do nothing himself expect the Father who is able to do these things.

irregardless, What John 1:3 says is that Jesus created everything that was created. It does not say everything after He Himself was created. 

27 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Not to mention they misinterpret what he said, as is done before.

yes they did, as mentioned to Billy. They thought of the temple THEY built. 

28 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

So how, according to you does that relate back to Acts 2:24 when Acts 13:2 is not a cross-references to the core passage in of itself?

It correlates just as I said, It is another instance of the Holy Spirit. 

28 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

We also should not be leaving out the fact the verse professed before states that He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit which dwells in you. So yes.

agreed

29 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

nothing points back in references to Jesus being risen from the tomb.

well John 2:19 does.  It clearly states who will raise the "temple of His body", Himself.  

31 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I'm afraid it does. When dealing with the word firstborn, it doesn't mean Jesus was born in the heavens but was created to be part of God's creation of the heavens and earth. This means every spirit entity, the heavens, earth, animals, vegetation, and humans. The only difference, everything after Jesus was second.

again, you mention created and there is no scriptural support for Jesus being created. No scripture says that AFTER Jesus was created, THEN He created everything else. 

25 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

By reading scripture correctly, I cannot agree with your assessment. Jesus was being symbolic as to the intent, whoever literal as to his Father's power to raise him. This is indeed how the interpretation is rendered within Christendom.

what was symbolic was "His body" and this is also confirmed by Scripture. John 2:21and 22 attest to this. Not symbolic as to who was going to do it. This is proven by the answer by the Jews. 

2 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Okay. Let’s look at John 2:19 What is Jesus intent. The context is clear. To cleanse the temple after the Jews demanded proof of Jesus Authority.

 

Even if you destroy this temple, in three days I will raise it up again.

 

While the Jews were literally talking about a physical temple, Jesus was referring to himself. Isn’t that what happened?

absolutely! What did happen? Jesus said He would raise Himself and that is what happened. He was raised. Here in John 2:19 He says He would do it. I agree that Jesus was speaking of His body as the temple. It was exactly this, His body,  that He said He would raise. It was done just as He said it would be. Did this confuse the Jews? Kind of, because they missed the part that He was talking about His body/Temple. They thought the actual temple that THEY build. 

41 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

When Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up and we can see the reaction and action from the Jews taken after this was said.

The facts show us that his body was the Temple of God; the Word tabernacled in human flesh and that flesh was the Father's Temple. He, this body of flesh, was the Father's Word and he spoke the words of the Father, as we are well aware of regarding the Old and New Testament and by means of whom Jesus came from. And clearly this did not sit well with the Jews and they plot to kill him.

Matthew 26:59-61, 27:39, 40 and  Mark 14:57, 58 are also references.

Right, Jesus said He would raise Himself up. Which He did. So here Jesus raised Himself. 

Yes, of course the Jews didn't like it, because He claimed something that only God could claim. 

42 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

You technically answered yourself with this one granted that Romans 8:11 points back to Acts 2:24 and in addition to the other references being Ephesians 2:1, 5. For indeed, God was the one responsible for taking the Lord out of the pangs of Death.

Right, so the Spirit of God, also called the Holy Spirit, raised Jesus from the dead. Yes it does reference back to Acts 2:24. Another instance of this is in Acts as well, Acts 13:2

18 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Scholastically, there are many renders to biblical understanding. I find it useful when we make certain observations about context and intent. This is meant to show those variations when we are attempting to be absolute.

sure, but translating words from one language to another just to translate it again to another, is losing its meaning.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We would like to think that God used Michael to create. In common sense, we are referring to creation. Can there be two creators? if so, who is the highest of them, or can they be equal. Did God create Michael as an equal? Scripture doesn't bear witness to that. Once again, are we trying to add to scripture which is forbidden by God?

The problem I have with this thinking is that it is not backup by scripture and contradicts John 1:3. 

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then we would have to believe in one of two things. Certain ideas come to mind. Either God is a woman, or God had a wife. Is this unheard of? no, there are some that have investigated these claims. If we stick with scripture, there is only one way to look at God. As a creator. Firstborn would fall under that category.

This is interjecting ideas not found within our topic of conversation. I agree, lets stick to scripture. What does John 1:3 say? How can this be reconciled to the rest of scripture in regards to creation? 

Just now, BillyTheKid46 said:

Firstborn through God's spirit, correct, not created as Adam. However, you can include firstborn spirit child (Perfect) that remained a perfect spiritual human. Jesus did not lose his perfection, like Adam.

I can agree here, but nothing says Jesus was created. Firstborn, yes, but the meaning of firstborn in context is not synonymous with created. 

4 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I don't believe I mentioned it did. The way Trinitarians want it to be explained is how John becomes nullified since Christ did not create himself, just like God was not created by our definition of creation.  Keep in mind the imperative here, through him, in John. God continued his creation along with Michael. They are still separate entities bonded in a union for one common goal, to continue with creation. Where would you place trinity in this instance to mean Jesus and God, 2=1 Jesus is God?

John 1:3 still says that not one thing that was created was created without Jesus. 

I'm not even talking about the trinity, I am talking about how John 1:3 says that nothing was created without Jesus. How is that so? 

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Or this one.... Wait for it.... Acts 2 pretty much tells you God raised Jesus from the Dead, and he made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Trinitarians do not like to go to Acts 1 and 2 at all.

I agree that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24). Who did it, or claimed to do it, according to these scriptures:

John 2:19  ?

Romans 8:11  ?

13 hours ago, John Houston said:

And Revelation 4:11 tells us that it is by Jehovah God's will that all things were created. ALL THINGS, even his son, the Word, at the start.

does this not contradict John 1:3? how do YOU reconcile the two scriptures? 

On 11/2/2018 at 3:55 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Unfortunately, you have nullified much of what scripture has given in favor of Christ being the son.

please demonstrate where I have nullified anything. Is it here where I quoted myself? 

On 11/2/2018 at 2:24 PM, Shiwiii said:

let me just say that I believe that Jesus was begotten.

On 11/2/2018 at 3:55 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

We can agree that scripture cannot contradict itself.

Great, so what part of John 1:3 says Jesus created Himself? Or that Jesus was created? I think John 1:3 clearly states that not one thing that was created was created without Jesus. 

On 11/2/2018 at 3:55 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, the oneness in John 1:3 applies to the first. This is the only way it can be interpreted. Strong, supports this understanding as well. The cognitive debate is on how its meant in John. In this case, it is referring to firstborn. Firstborn in human form by a spirit entity. Jesus helped god, and through him, things came to be. John used this understanding to illustrate the unity Jesus and God have.

so in this part of your post, let me see if I follow you, are you saying that Jesus being born here on Earth is the part where firstborn comes in? obviously Jesus was not the first person born here on Earth, but He is the firstborn of God. This singles Him out from among other's by different means then physical birth, it must have more meaning. Correct? 

Lets look at Issac, why was he called "firstborn"? He wasn't the first child born to Abraham. 

On 11/2/2018 at 3:55 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie, a Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (LEH)

See here I have not a problem, per se, but a question. Why are you using a lexicon of the Septuagint when dealing with the New Testament? The Septuagint is the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, Old Testament to Greek. Either way, when you read the lexicon for the Septuagint you ARE getting the meanings of the Greek words that best represent the Hebrew meaning and then converting it into English(or whatever language). To convey the meaning from Hebrew to Greek is not an easy task, but to then convert it into English it compounds the loss of meaning and breaks it down to what "best fits".  Nothing wrong with that, but you must keep that in mind if you are going to use this as your support. And by the way, I noticed you didn't use any scripture to support your position. John 1:3 doesn't count since it is our subject. 

So if scripture cannot contradict itself, explain to me using scripture how John 1:3 doesn't say that Jesus created everything that was created and without Him nothing was created. 

15 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

How else can this be interpreted when it amounts to the same thing. Jesus was first created. Begotten Son, firstborn. The implication is God is recycling himself, for what purpose. If we stick with scripture, once again it becomes a book of deception, not fact. Then, theology has to rethink where it is not making any kind of sense.

We cannot just rely on scripture that might support our personal point of view and nullify the rest. This is unheard of with scholars and theologians.

It is interpreted by means of scripture. 

First we have to agree that scripture does not contradict itself. agreed? 

If that is your belief as well, then great we are on the same page. 

If John 1:3 states that not a single thing came into existence without Jesus, what does that mean to you? Does it mean that Jesus created Himself? Before you jump to your answer, let me just say that I believe that Jesus was begotten. This is evident by scripture. What does that even mean? Begotten? To keep this as simple as we can, lets stick with the book of John for a minute. John 1:14 mentions that Jesus is begotten , the only begotten from the Father.

The word in Greek is:

G3439

μονογενής

monogenēs

mon-og-en-ace

From G3441 and G1096 ; only {born} that {is} sole: - only ({begotten} child).

Which is derived from G3441 and G1096 which are:

G3441

μόνος

monos

mon'-os

Probably from G3306 ; {remaining} that {is} sole or single ; by implication mere: - {alone} {only} by themselves.

and 

G1096

γίνομαι

ginomai

ghin'-om-ahee

A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be ( gen {-erate}) that {is} (reflexively) to become ( come into {being }) used with great latitude ({literally} {figuratively} {intensively} etc.): - arise be {assembled} be ({come} {-fall} -have {self}) be brought (to {pass}) (be) come (to {pass}) {continue} be {divided} be {done} {draw} be {ended} {fall} be {finished} {follow} be {found} be {fulfilled} + God {forbid} {grow} {happen} {have} be {kept} be {made} be {married} be ordained to {be} {partake} {pass} be {performed} be {published} {require} {seem} be {showed} X soon as it {was} {sound} be {taken} be {turned} {use} {wax} {will} {would} be wrought.

As we can see here is means single,only,sole of what? to become, be brought to, to cause to be. Sounds very much like created, I agree. However, within context of John 1:3, it would mean that Jesus created Himself. The writers could have also used a different word in John 1:14 instead of begotten and that would be :

G2936

κτίζω

ktizō

ktid'-zo

Probably akin to G2932 (through the idea of the proprietorship of the manufacturer ); to {fabricate} that {is} found ( form originally): - {create} {Creator} make.

Clearly this kitzo has the meaning of created and it is used throughout the New Testament when read in context. But that wasn't the word used to describe Jesus. The idea of begotten is only found in the New Testament 9 times with 6 of those attributed to Jesus. The other 3 are speaking of a single child of a father or mother. This is true, but if you look at how it is used towards Jesus vs how it is used towards the son or daughter the other three times, you see a vast difference of importance within context.

Did Jesus come from the Father? yes.

Is Jesus unlike ANY other? yes

Was Jesus created? no. 

16 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The metaphor of firstborn is of course, figurative. God is not male or female. He is internal energy. This makes it clear God creates not gives birth.

I agree with this statement. 

I have provided scripture and definitions from Strong's to support my belief. I haven't nullified any scripture nor ignored any. please demonstrate from your perspective, with Scripture and we can go from there. 

To add to my last post :

G4413

πρῶτος

prōtos

pro'-tos

Contracted superlative of G4253 ; foremost (in {time} {place} order or importance): - {before} {beginning} {best} chief ({-est}) first (of {all}) former.

G5088

τίκτω

tiktō

tik'-to

A strengthened from of a primary word τέκω tekō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from {seed} as a {mother} a {plant} the {earth} {etc.}) literal or figurative: - {bear} be {born} bring {forth} be {delivered} be in travail.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

True. Doesn’t scripture refer to Christ as the firstborn (created)? Colossians 1:15 Then as the first created spirit child, he would experience the rest of all creation. Christ would be part of that creation, not as a creator, but the master builder. Once again, how can theologians resolve this conflict, If Jesus is referring to himself? Once again, why didn’t Satan understand he was speaking to God? Trinity is an independent view to oneness. This isn’t new as stated before. The conflict is how this oneness is interpreted. That is the special bond between God and Christ. Just as God the creator of all things, wanted to see that special bond he has with Christ for his chosen people, oneness. It's referring to unity just like a husband an wife become one flesh. all followers of Christ become one body in Christ. This is the correct way to view Tertullian's work.

 

it all depends on your interpretation of "firstborn" or rather 

G4416

πρωτοτόκος

prōtotokos

pro-tot-ok'-os

From G4413 and the alternate of G5088 ; first born (usually as {noun} literally or figuratively): - firstbegotten (-born).

But if we let scripture speak for itself,  what does John 1:3 say? Does it say that Jesus made everything that has ever been made and nothing that has ever been made was made without Him having made it? I believe it does.

There is no separation from verse 1 through 3 on who is the subject, the subject is Jesus. So with that being said, for Jesus to have been created, He would have to create Himself. 

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If Jesus is God, he created Satan.

^{John 1:3} All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 

15 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Think of it this way ... A Police Department, because of their power and authority, MUST be as pure and blameless as the driven snow .... yet, they still have to recruit from flawed humans, some more advanced, smart, and people of dedication and integrity ... and some .... not so much.

oh yes, I totally understand this point. To assimilate the jw elders to police, while a very accurate analogy, is going  a bit far. Without going into the qualifications of these "police elders", they aren't even versed in the ways they are supposed to be, ie CSA. They are merely told to call someone else. I don't even buy the whole "well they are imperfect people", that is a complete cop out and a perfect excuse for the blunders they've committed. If they are not qualified, then they're not anything more than advisers. Advice is great if it is accepted and put into practice, but in reality that's all they are is advisers. 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Just as a Police Department has methods and means to weed out graft, corruption, and hidden evil .. usually relegated to an "Internal Affairs" department ... so to Jehovah's Witnesses need methods and means to have an organization that is honest, competent, properly focused, and free from evil, as defined by Jehovah God, and the Bible.

again spiritual cops? hardly. In the end we, individuals, are held accountable for what we have done, not a group of uneducated men dictating the "standards" of an organization. While on this topic of standards, Can anyone show me in the Bible where beards are looked down upon? how about higher education? birthdays? and the list goes on. Its not found anywhere, its man made. 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The people that DO have integrity .... where did they get it?

It's not ALWAYS just a matter of you either having integrity ... or you don't.

As a Barbarian who had to LEARN integrity (hopefully ...) I can tell you .. if you WANT to be part of the solution to human foibles, rather than the CAUSE ... you HAVE to know what that higher standard is, and be determined, or even guided, or pushed into following that standard.

isn't this where parents and the Bible come in? It is.

Integrity is learned by following the morals instilled in you from either your dedication to the Bible/God, your parents (family), friends, observation, etc. Even then, some choose to disregard those morals and thus do not have it. 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Hopefully the "pushers" really do know what they are doing, and do it correctly.

You would not want a police officer that ONLY stole 15%, or perverted Justice, knowing he would never be caught. ..... etc.

It is an experimental and hazardous process at best ... sometimes a Policeman shoots the wrong person.

Such is life on Earth, among the Sons and Daughters of DNA.

Get it?

that is wishful thinking. We already know people are flawed. Sure we all make mistakes, get speeding tickets, lie, cheat, steal, etc. Its our human nature, but to give authority to a group of men who are no more trained than I is absurd. To be held accountable and receive discipline in the magnitude that is dished out, merely based on standards imposed by men, is just plain foolishness. I guess that may also be why the gb doesn't want people to go and receive higher education, to learn to think for themselves. 

I apologize if I may offend anyone with my statements here, but it is "the truth". 

Ok, maybe my opinion isn't needed here but I am sure to give it anyway.

What happened to individual morals? If two people are adults, and I mean mature enough to understand the dangers of being alone together out of public view after a wonderful evening, etc. , why must other adults....err....grown men stick their noses in other people's business? Sure there can be some accountability held by informing a friend or family member of the evening plans or whatever, but to have an adult principal to oversee your dance party/movie night/dinner date is actually pathetic and demonstrates a lack of self control and a willingness to let others dictate YOUR life.  This whole idea that elders have some sort of authority over how you live your life is expressing that jws as a whole cannot make their own decisions and must sneak and hide like high school kids. If you have no personal boundaries, then you are going to do what you are going to do, its just like integrity, you have it or your don't. 

I just don't get it.

19 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Overruled.

How is that people are not suppose to know anything about such groups when it is in their faces and all over the place and embedded in their communities, specifically, urban communities? They donate and gain resources to send out - do they not? They receive donations, monetarily - do they not? They flaunt this in the faces in the public so I ask you, how is it that no one is aware or suppose to know things?

Goodwill, The Salvation Army, and a list of others are not too shy from doing exactly the same thing as others are doing in clubs churches and schools.

Perhaps the rock you are under is way too big, Shiwiii, you have to see that people are aware of these types of clubs and any branches in connection to them. Nice try though.

easy tiger,

sarcasm, with a little taste of wt to go with it.