Shiwiii

so tell me how Abraham, Issac and Jacob missed out on this? God said He appeared to Abraham, Issac and Jacob only as God Almighty, so these three were not worthy to know His name, but the rest of the people were?

Again, take into account who wrote Genesis, and who was the first to know God's name? Same guy...Moses. 

19 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Genesis 4:26 refutes you.

Moses wrote Genesis, Moses knew Gods name according to Exodus 6. Of course he would write it where it applies in the earlier accounts. God told Moses that He did not make Himself know to Abraham, Issac and Jacob as "YHWH" but only as God Almighty. 

On 5/12/2016 at 4:27 AM, Melinda Mills said:

Thanks for your interest. Here is some research on it. Please check the scriptures  and note that in the King James version where it says LORD in uppercase the translators are refusing to use the Divine Name YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah). You are free to agree or otherwise. This will be my only reply.

*** w83 10/15 p. 30 Exodus—From Tyranny to Theocratic Order ***

•6:3—Since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used the name Jehovah, in what sense had God not made it known to them?

The name Jehovah literally means “He Causes to Become,” that is, according to God’s purpose. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used the divine name and received promises from Jehovah. Yet they did not know or experience Jehovah as the One who caused these promises to be completely fulfilled. (Genesis 12:1, 2; 15:7, 13-16; 26:24; 28:10-15) However, Jehovah’s name soon would take on greater meaning for their descendants, the Israelites. They would come to know its real meaning when Jehovah carried out his purpose toward Israel by delivering them from tyranny and then giving them the Promised Land in fulfillment of his covenant with their forefathers.

*** w14 7/15 p. 27 “You Are My Witnesses” ***

WHAT GOD’S NAME MEANS

14 To enhance our appreciation for the honor of bearing God’s name, it is good for us to meditate on its meaning. Commonly translated “Jehovah,” the divine name comes from a Hebrew verb that can describe action and can be translated “to become.” Thus, the name Jehovah is understood to mean “He Causes to Become.” This definition well fits Jehovah’s role both as the Creator of the physical universe and intelligent beings and as the Fulfiller of his purpose. As events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized no matter what any opposer, such as Satan, may do in an attempt to thwart the progressive outworking of God’s will.

15 When commissioning Moses to lead God’s people out of Egypt, Jehovah revealed an aspect of his personality by using a related verb to describe his name, this time in the first person. The Bible record states: “God said to Moses: ‘I Will Become What I Choose to Become’ [or, “I Will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be”]. And he added: ‘This is what you are to say to the Israelites, “I Will Become has sent me to you.”’” (Ex. 3:14; ftn.) Thus Jehovah, in any circumstance, will become whatever is needed to accomplish his purpose. To the once-enslaved Israelites, he proved to be a Deliverer, a Protector, a Guide, and a Provider who satisfied all their material and spiritual needs.

Exodus 6:2 refutes you.

Amen

On 5/10/2016 at 7:16 AM, Melinda Mills said:

(Exodus 6:2) Then God said to Moses: “I am Jehovah. ³ And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.

(Exodus 20:7) “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave unpunished the one who takes up His name in a worthless way.

(Isaiah 12:2) Look! God is my salvation. I will trust and feel no dread; For Jah Jehovah is my strength and my might, And he has become my salvation.”

(Isaiah 42:8) I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, Nor my praise to graven images.

(Isaiah 43:10) “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none.(Isaiah 43:12) “I am the One who declared and saved and made known When there was no foreign god among you. So you are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “and I am God.  (We  can witness for his name, live up to it, and use it descriptively for our group of worshippers.)

Don't think anyone in the time of the Israelites would have dared to. Even in Jesus's day they would not pronounce the Divine Name because they thought it too holy.

We have more knowledge today about the meaning of the name (even though we don't know the correct Hebrew pronunciation). They are a lot of persons today (especially of the Rastafarian faith) with the abbreviated part of His name, Jah, added to their name as a prefix or suffix. However, I don't think anyone will dare use Jehovah as their personal name.

Don't forget we too bear God's name as his witnesses (see Isaiah 43:12). We understand his uniqueness and loftiness, so we won't even think of using it as a personal name. We are encouraged to imitate him as beloved children; yet we know that no imperfect person can even approach Him without the covering of his Son's ransom. We don't want to be like him in the way that Satan and Eve tried to be, either; taking anything unique to Him, including privileges and worship that don't belong to us.

 Whether persons attempt to use the name as a personal name or not, Jehovah is able to protect it and his reputation.

N.B. Jah and Jehovah are anglicized renditions of the Divine Name,  יהוה (YHWH)

 

interesting that you quote exodus 6:2 &3 here. The name of God was only spoken in the Holy of Holies on one time of the year, and by Aaron and his successors. But I think I remember you saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would have known the name. 

We all must honor the Son just as we honor the Father.

On 5/10/2016 at 7:31 AM, butchsweet said:

If this decision was made by the Governing body to let the older ones go are we not complaining to Jehovah himself and saying he has made the wrong decision.

Didn't G Jackson say under oath in court that he and the other GB's were not the mouth piece of Jehovah on Earth? 

Then how can you assimilate the words of the GB to that of GOD?!?!?!?

26 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

1 Peter 4:6 is not about anyone physically dead. No amount of preaching would have benefited physically dead humans because, as Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, they “are conscious of nothing at all,” and Psalm 146:4 adds that at death a person’s “thoughts do perish.” As mentioned before, Ephesians 2:1-7, 17 does refer to persons who were spiritually dead and who came to life spiritually as a result of accepting the good news.

Your Ecc quote is take out of context. If you read the chapter you will see this is talking about the ability to sin under the sun. that is the problem, your org keeps you in the dark by not taking things into context, but rather cherry picking scripture to support themselves. By this point you have been so indoctrinated you cannot see the context. I've already addressed your Ephesians quote, to which you had no reply really. 

13 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

Actually, Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever." 

That has another to do with whether he had a beginning or not.

Jesus did not become the way to salvation until he actually the paid ransom with his blood and presented it to his Father. Then those chosen for life in heaven were baptized in holy spirit. 

No one ascended before Jesus. 

if one had a beginning then they would not be the same from eternity. Don't side track this.

Jesus was salvation before anything was created. If that were not the case then Ephesians 1:4&5 would make no sense. A predestination doesn't happen after the fact. 

Once again, you have not supported a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign. The reason why is because you cannot. If you would like to continue to discuss the topic of Jesus and creation or anything else, please start a new thread. We've exhausted this one only to prove that the booklet "what does the bible really teach" is wrong, the Bible does not teach a resurrection during the thousand year reign. 

2 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

Actually, Jesus ransom sacrifice is the reason why there is a chance for those who have already died.

Just think of how many have died that never had the opportunity to put faith in Jesus.

Jesus already spoke to those who have died. 1 Peter 4:6 tells us this. Also in Hebrews 11 scripture tells us of the OT saints who believed by faith, however they were given the same gospel that we have so that we and them would be the same, with one faith. 

2 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

Jesus did not become "the way" until the first century.

Actually no, Jesus was "the way" from eternity. Hebrews 13:8 tells us this. He did not become, He always was. 

Again, you have not supported a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign. 

2 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

If death does not free the unrighteous from sin there would be no hope for the 'evildoer' that Jesus promised would be in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

"And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15) 

The account in Luke, salvation  was given to that person with the faith in Jesus,  not because that man died. Context context context.

Acts 24 does not negate Hebrews 9,  it supports it. Paul was apealing to their knowledge they already had of the resurrection. 

2 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

What good would be served by raising millions of people from the dead whose former lives were filled with vile deeds, only to tell them that they are vile and then execute them? The indication of the Scriptures is that when Haʹdes gives up those dead in it, they will be ‘judged individually according to the deeds’ they do following their resurrection. (Rev. 20:13) The resurrection will afford them an opportunity to live.

You are reading into the text your view of "following the resurrection ". It is not there and if you read the chapter instead of just the verse you will see that it isn't there.

2 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

 

As Hebrews 9:27, 28, “it is reserved for men to die once for all time” due to sin inherited from Adam, “but after this a judgment” that is made possible by the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that gives men the opportunity

Salvation is known and owned this side of the grave. 1 John 5:13. It's not some later opportunity. 

2 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

 

Those who practices vile things will be granted the opportunity to change their ways and gain salvation, but in the case of those who do not do so, it will become evident at the time of that final test that theirs was a ‘resurrection of condemnatory judgment.’

The opportunity is now not later, by then it is too late. Once you die, that's it, no second chance or else Jesus died for nothing. 

You are taking Romans 6:7 and 23 out of context. If you read it in context with the chapter as a whole you will see it. If you choose to selectively take a single verse then you will see what YOU want to see. Hebrews 9:27 and 2 Cor 9:10 spell a different picture than what you want to believe. 

Again, we are talking about a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign.

Again, you have provided no scriptural support for your belief, only speculation. 

I have to conclude since this has been going on this long and you have not supported a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign, then it means that you cannot do so with scripture. I get it and fully understand. You believe it, I don't based on the Bible. So what does the Bible really teach? Not a resurrection during the thousand year reign as the book implies. 

3 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

It is quite simple why resurrection will take place before Satan is released at the end of Thousand Years.

Those that "practiced vile things"  . Romans 6:7, 23 helps us to understand that those that have died have already paid the wage for what they did before they died. So, there is no further judgment for what they did before they died.

They will be judged for what they do after being resurrected. They must put faith in Jesus and take a stand for pure worship.

 

Your first sentence is refuted by the Bible itself at rev 20:4&5. 

Romans 6:7, if you read from verse 1 through to verse 7 you will see the actual context. When someone believes in Jesus, they then have died with Him of their former self. This has more to do with living for Christ for the sake of what He did for us. It has nothing to say about what you do for yourself in the means of dying. You cannot cover your own sins by your own death, or else there would be no reason for Jesus to have come and done it for us. Verse 23, yes sin deserves death and it is our belief in Jesus that gives us the free gift of God, eternal life. 

All will be judged according to what they did in their body in this lifetime. There is no second chance.  

2 Corinthians 5:10  "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." 

Hebrews 9:27 " And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,"

It is quite interesting how the title of this booklet is similar to the question satan had to Eve. 

Both are questioning what God has told to man and interjecting an opinion outside of what God had said. 

I understand and agree with you that this and other discussions should be about reasoning, however we cannot reason if we are not dealing with facts and merely using opinions. 

6 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

What you have failed to see in all of this is that the Thousand Year Reign is when all of these things described at Revelation chapter 20 occur.

I am reading Rev 20:4&5 as they are written, these verses do not say during, but rather spell out exactly how things are going to take place and when. Yes, the chapter centers around the thousand years, no argument here on that. The fact is that each section of chapter 20 deals with something specific. This chapter is written chronologically, event after event and how each derives from the last. It would make no sense for Satan to be released after death and been abolished. Verse 4&5 tell us exactly in which order who is resurrected and when, there is no grey area here. Before the thousand years the first resurrection, after the thousand years, the rest. What you are trying to do is gather the events and contain them within the thousand years, which is just not possible. 

7 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

You have not explained away my reply regarding the "last day." If the resurrection does not occur during Christ's Thousand Year Reign, then Jesus will not have accomplished what his rule is designed to do, before he hands it back to his God and Father. (1 Cor. 15:27, 28) The last enemy death will not have been brought to nothing(1 Cor. 15:25, 26) if the physical resurrection has not occurred. 

I think here you believe that the thousand years and the "last day" are synonymous, which they are not. While I agree that "Judgement day" is probably not a single day, it is not the 1000 year reign, there is no scripture to support this either. 

7 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

Your misunderstanding of my reference to "come to life" as symbolic does not explain away that the purpose of the Thousand Year Reign is to restore what Adam lost - perfect human life for all faithful humans. 

I answered you based on your "symbolic death" but you didn't clarify, instead you simply state I misunderstand. You will need to help me understand your thought then. By answering the questions I raised on this, you will be helping me understand. 

here it is again:

On 5/6/2016 at 2:30 PM, Shiwiii said:

You are believing then, that these ones will not "come to life", that is come to know God, until after the thousand year reign? So then these will not understand what is happening around them, not gain understanding, not realize Jesus is who He says He is, until after 100 years and then be subjected to judgement? no amount of teaching from any Elders, WT's, Awakes, shepherding calls, brothers/sisters, nothing until its time of judgement? Is that what you believe? It appears that way based on your thoughts on these ones being dead as in dead to their former way of life, and NOT coming to life as in a resurrection, but rather knowledge. Do you also think then that these that do not "come to life" until after 1000 years are the same ones who Satan gathers to make war with the saints? 

7 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

The Thousand Year Reign serves no purpose if everyone that can have the possibility of perfect human life on a restored earthly paradise are not present to be judged. This will require that the dead "who practiced vile things" be resurrected, as John 5:29 reveals, in order to be judged during the Thousand Year Reign.

judgement is after the thousand years are completed. Rev 20:7 tells us when the thousand years were over, and verse 11 starts telling us about the judgement. Again, I think you have the thousand year reign and the last day as synonymous. John 5:29 does not reveal that "during" anytime period. This is interjected bias on your part for a resurrection during the thousand years. John 5:29 does tells us what will happen AT judgement, some resurrected to life and others resurrected to judgement.  Hebrews 9:27 tells us that after death comes judgement. This tells us plainly that there is no second chance. Both John 5:29 and Heb 9:27 speak of the same thing, but neither are talking about during the thousand year reign. 

7 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

You want to see a Scripture that says, in black & white, 'The resurrection will occur during the Thousand Year Reign." But it is only evident by an ability to reason with soundness of mind and considering everything the Bible has to say on the topic. 

We already have scripture that states otherwise!

It is YOU who is trying to say it doesn't mean what it says, and that is why I am asking for scripture to support YOUR claim.

You made a statement about belittling, but not you want to imply a lack of the ability to reason with soundness??? I'm giving you scripture that contradicts your claim. What you are doing and believing in is the same thing the serpent did to Eve. The serpent tricked Eve by asking if God really said they would die? Instead he made Even think that God was lying, kinda like you are doing by saying that when Rev 20:4&5 don't really mean before the thousand year reign and after. 

7 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

With proper Bible study it becomes evident that the "Thousand Year Reign" and "Judgment Day" are the same.

I have read your links and they too lack biblical support for its claims. There is no scripture to support this resurrection during the thousand year reign. Instead, like you, there is an assumption that judgement day and the 1000 year reign are one and the same. Included in some of the wording is "Judgement day will thus see the restoration of mankind to its original perfect state." How exactly is the term judge being used here? It is not, it is inventing a double meaning to the term judge. We see in Rev 20:12 that this is when the actual judging takes place, and this is after the thousand year reign, verse 7 tells us this. 

9 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

You vaguely say you were never one of Jehovah's Witnesses but this statement of yours compelled me to ask. You said, "no amount of teaching from any Elders, WT's, Awakes, shepherding calls, brothers/sisters,...? " I wonder if you would even answer truthfully. This statement makes it hard to believe that you weren't. Were the elders making shepherding calls on you to help you see the light?

because I am not ignorant to the ways the WT works, does not mean I have ever been part of it. 

7 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

For those who would like to learn how Judgment Day and the Thousand Year Reign coincide, please refer to: What Does the Bible Really Teach? APPENDIX: Judgment Day - What Is It?

I disagree, if one wants to know then read the Bible. 

2 hours ago, Dwayne Reed said:

Just wanted to see if could simply answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.

I cannot determine if your reply is a yes or no.

No, you are trying to get away from the topic because you have no Biblical support for your belief. That's fine, I just won't follow you into the rabbit hole.

1 hour ago, Dwayne Reed said:

Shiwii,

Were you ever one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

What revelance does that have on the topic? The Bible is our guide, right?  So our answers must come from the Bible and nothing else,  because that is the only inspired word of God.  

Dwayne,  

Thank you for your reply. 

7 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

In reference to Revelations 20:13, can you not see how resurrection is described by "the sea and Hades" giving up those dead in them?

You have to look at the context of our conversation, which is about the resurrection during the 1000 year reign, not if there is a resurrection. Of course there is, but that is not the topic we are discussing. 

8 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

In reference to resurrection during the Thousand Year Reign, an angel assured the prophet Daniel: “You will rest, but you will stand up for your lot at the end of the days.” (Daniel 12:13) Martha likewise believed that her brother, Lazarus, would “rise in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:24) The Bible connects this “last day” with Christ’s Kingdom rule at 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26, where Paul wrote: “For he/Christ must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.” Think about it...wouldn’t everyone have to be resurrected for “death to be brought to nothing?”

No actually God does not need us to do anything with or for Him. He can do away with death on His own. None of your scriptures state a resurrection during the 1000 year reign. You are putting limits on God and His ability to remove death. Think about it, why would God need everyone to come back to life to rid the world of death? Death is a physical expiration of the body. If one is already dead, can death sting again if that one is not alive? Unless you believe that there is something living after physical expiration...

9 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

In reference to your question about Revelation 20:5, as clearly stated, it is not “the rest of the dead” who share in the first resurrection. The first resurrection is for those who rule with Christ during the thousand years.

I quite agree. Further it states that those "first" resurrected are resurrected before the 1000 year reign, not during. The rest, after the 1000 year reign. There is no mention of ANY during this time period.

11 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

When we compare Ephesians 2:1, we can see that the Scriptures also refer to death symbolically. With this and with John 11:24 in mind, in what sense do the rest of the dead not “come to life” until the end of the thousand years? Is it possible the rest of the dead come to life in the same sense as described at Ephesians 2:1? In this case meaning life free from all effects of sin?

You are believing then, that these ones will not "come to life", that is come to know God, until after the thousand year reign? So then these will not understand what is happening around them, not gain understanding, not realize Jesus is who He says He is, until after 100 years and then be subjected to judgement? no amount of teaching from any Elders, WT's, Awakes, shepherding calls, brothers/sisters, nothing until its time of judgement? Is that what you believe? It appears that way based on your thoughts on these ones being dead as in dead to their former way of life, and NOT coming to life as in a resurrection, but rather knowledge. Do you also think then that these that do not "come to life" until after 1000 years are the same ones who Satan gathers to make war with the saints? 

11 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

When we look at it with everything here discussed in mind, the “rest of the dead” could include all those who resurrected "on the last day," the survivors of the great tribulation, and those who may be born during that time.

That is pure speculation and assumption. We cannot live on assumption, we live on scripture.

12 minutes ago, Dwayne Reed said:

They all “come to life” by being relieved of the death-dealing effects of sin inherited from Adam, as described at Romans 5:12, by the end of the Thousand Year Reign. 

Could this be the case, Shiwii? If not, please provide a scriptural basis why it could not.

I have addressed this with my explanation and questions above. It is either that these will not be resurrected, or they will not "come to life" in your terms, until the end of the 1000 year reign. At that time many will side with Satan and make war against the holy ones. Are these them that side with Satan? If so, then you may have a point, but we see that is not the case when looking at the rest of Rev 20 as a whole and in context. This judgement that occurs, after the war with Satan, is a judgement of both the good and the bad (see John 5:28&29). 

35 minutes ago, Kurt said:

The resurrection to life on earth will occur during the Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, when the earth will be transformed into a paradise.—Luke 23:43;Revelation 20:6, 12, 13.

Great, I'm glad you pointed this out to me. Your scriptural references I'd like to address one by one.

Luke 23:43 " And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Where in this scripture does it state during the 1000 year reign? It doesn't. 

Revelation 20:6 " Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

Again, this does not mention that these will be resurrected DURING the 1000 year reign, only that they will reign and rule with Jesus during the 1000 year reign. 

Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books,according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done."

Nothing about resurrection DURING the 1000 year reign. 

Now lets take a look at a few verses before your Rev 20:6 quote, starting at verse 4:

4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

Here this states that those who were beheaded for their testimony about Jesus, and did not take the mark, are the ones who will reign with Jesus FOR a thousand years. This is not for 999 years, or 300 years, but the full 1000 years. So these cannot be the ones resurrected DURING the 1000 years. 

Even more is verse 5  " The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. " 

What happens to the rest of the dead? Not resurrected until after the 1000 year reign. So we see those who were resurrected prior to the 1000 year reign and those who were after the 1000 years, but no mention of ANY during. In fact, the exact opposite is true, "the rest did not", meaning NONE were resurrected during the 1000 year reign. 

So where in the Bible does it really teach a resurrection during the 1000 year reign? please provide your scriptural support. 

So you agree that this book "what does the Bible really teach" tells that this resurrection is going to be during the 1000 year reign? 

22 hours ago, Joy Libert said:

And that they will be resurrected right back here on earth in the very near future at John 5:28,29.

Is this resurrection taking place during the 1000 year reign as this book implies? 

13 hours ago, Ronnie Lee said:

also we are NEVER EVER made ro go door to door

Then why is it that there is a publisher card with your name on it? If it is of free will, then there would be no need to record who did what and when. Also, if you fail to turn in this time card, do you not get counseled? Why would you get counseled? Why would you be told you are not doing enough for Jehovah? Thus making him sad. No one is putting a gun to your head , I agree, but through coercion you are being forced. If it really is a matter of take it or leave it, then you wouldn't be subjected to reprove if you didn't. 

The account in the Bible you use to go door to door, is Acts 5:42 yes?  

Gregorio, I watched your link and appreciate your contribution to this topic. 

Here are a few things I have a problem with in Mr. Barron's video. First point is that he seems to be implying that the Jews had used the term God rather frequently and thus making the meaning of less importance unless it is considered of YHWH. While on the surface this may sound acceptable, however Jews today and back then reserve God in the utmost importance. There is no evidence to support that the Jews would equate any other gods on par with God, its just not there. Furthermore, the suggestion that the writers of the NT were Jews and wrote from within a Jewish mind frame is unsupported and is actually the opposite of what they actually wrote. The writers of the NT positioned themselves in opposition to the Jews, not aligned. 

Mr. Barron has a short article this very subject on his website, particularly John 5:18&19, and on it he has this to say: 

" Nevertheless, I must address one own point therein, namely, that in 5:19 Jesus provided an answer to those seeking to kill him. Quite simply, Jesus “answered” the Jews not because he wasn’t breaking the Sabbath or making himself equal to God. If this was their understanding they were entirely correct, but they erred in failing to understand he was rightly sanctioned for both and in subjection to God through it all. " -http://www.scripturaltruths.com/

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I agree with you that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus.  But in that very statement, there is a distinction between God and Jesus.

But all that is God, is in Jesus. You admitted that, but you still want to say that He is not. ok. Do you then think that Jesus has all that is God and then some more of something that is Himself too? Meaning Jesus has more whatever in Him than God does? 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Where did I say that Jesus couldn’t even spit on the ground?  I agree that the Pharisees had added traditions to the Sabbath requirements, but the point here is that if John believed and wrote that Jesus broke the Sabbath, he is agreeing with Jesus’ opponents that he was a sinner.    That cannot be true.   John can only be quoting the accusations of Jesus’ enemies.

You didn't, but it was the point I was trying to make. Jesus broke the Pharisees laws about the Sabbath, that is what John wrote about. Jesus is without sin. It is not an accusation, it is fact, Jesus broke the Pharisees laws, not God's. 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I have no need to take up anything with “Bible writers” - references are put in Bibles for various reasons.    It is your argument that Jesus’ opponents were telling the truth when they said there was a law that required Jesus should die for claiming to be the Son of God.    The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is correct.   As you cannot, the only conclusion is that this was another lie on their part.

actually it is on you, because it is referenced in both your Bible and mine, I just pointed it out. You said that there is no way that John would attribute Lev 24:16 to this, however both of our Bibles do. see below

On 5/1/2016 at 10:10 AM, Donald Diamond said:

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text. 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Absolutely.  Therefore the comment that Jesus broke the Sabbath must have been the Pharisees view - not the Gospel writer.

exactly, and that is what the Jewish leaders used to kill Jesus. John just wrote it, not agreed with it. 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Thanks for that - hopefully OK now.

yup, its good now. 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I believe I have explained more than once how I understand the term “god” when used in relation to Jesus (including how he himself used it in John 10 – which was the original question).   I have pointed out that you expressed your question in terms of a false dichotomy (i.e. only allowing one of two answers when there can be more).  This is a debating technique,    So you must see that I am suspicious of you demanding a specific form of words.   Please define what you mean by a “legitimate god” – do you consider Zeus to be a legitimate god?  Dagon?  Baal?  If you mean, is he God (Jehovah) then the answer is no - but I think you already know that.

What categories are there then? You laid out three, I showed you how Jesus could not fit in two. What more is there? 

No Zeus is not a legitimate god. Neither is Moses, nor Kings, nor anyone according to Isiah 43. God said that there was not one before nor after Him. So if you believe that at John 1:1 Jesus is a god, then what kind of god is He? There really is only two kinds, true and false. True God is YHWH, false is satan, false is Moses, false is the rest. This all hinges on Isiah 43, there is no God other than YHWH. So if you believe that Jesus is a god, and if you believe He is not YHWH, then He is not true god, thus making Him on par with Moses/kings and satan and not fitting into Isiah 43. 

You don't talk to Him now (by means of prayer), so why do you think you would expect to talk to Him then?

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

As the Jews were sons of God, angels are called sons of God in Job and Adam was son of God (Luke 3:38), I have demonstrated absolutely that son of God does not mean “of the same nature as God”

Was Jesus claiming to be another son of God or THE Son of God? There is a difference, even if you want to dismiss it. 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Col 2:9 states that something of God dwells in Christ.

Yes, it does......ALL that is God dwells within Jesus. The fullness of deity. The word used is pan or pas (G3956) and its meaning is all or whole, meaning completeness when used in conjunction with pleroma (G4138). 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

The Jewish leaders did not make the false distinction between God’s Sabbath and the Jews Sabbath that you suggest.   They were claiming that Jesus broke the Sabbath law of God – otherwise there is no point to their argument.  Of course, he did not – their claims were false.

So are you telling me that God required men to not even spit on the ground on the Sabbath because that would be considered plowing, thus "work" ? Really? You do not see a distinction between God's Sabbath and that of the Jewish leaders? That was the whole point of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, to show the Jews the true meaning of it. Not some over the top addition of man's rules upon Gods declaration of rest. 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

your quotation of Lev 24:16 is taken out of context.   The full context shows that it related to reviling God.

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text.   Jesus was not reviling God.    The problem with your argument is that when the Jewish leaders said: "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." – they were lying.   There is no such law as the Jewish leaders claimed.  More evidence of false witness.

Take that up with your Bible writers, I did not put that reference in your Bible, they did. You tell me why. I just pointed it out to you and can see why they did. There is a reason why that is referenced in 99% of Bibles out there at John 19:7. Your argument is not with me on this one. 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

John could not have written that Jesus broke the Sabbath.   What is recorded is the claims of Jesus’ opposers.

Jesus broke the rules of the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath, He did not break the Sabbath. Jesus told them it is alright to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12). 

I found out why the formatting is messed up. Once you are done with your post, highlight all of it and select the drop down for size and reduce it to 14 or less. 

Now let us get back to the point of this discussion. Do you believe Jesus is a legitimate God or not?