Shiwiii
-
Posts
1,092 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Shiwiii
-
-
18 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
That is why those Jews would need to continue honoring the Father and would now additionally have to honor the Son as they had formerly honored the Father alone.
This statement, I am in complete agreement with. They/we are to honor the Son just as we honor the Father. There is no separation or degree of honor given to one over the other.
-
Yes, the formatting was a little bit messed up. I'll just cut and paste to answer you.
-God is not the fruit of David’s loins – that is ridiculous. The prophecy in 2 Sam 7 is about a human son. Jehovah (YHWH) says “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”.
So are you saying that Jesus was only human? Colossians 2:9 says otherwise. Also look at Jesus explanation to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:42-46 on this very subject.
-Well, his opposers claimed it was what he said, not how he said it, so your premise is false.
According to scripture (and your own admission) “Son of God” does not mean “God”. As you
pointed out, the Jews were sons of God. Angels are probably called sons of God in Job, Adam
was son of God – in no case does “son of God” mean “God Himself”. You have no scriptural
basis for your claim. So my understanding of the term “Son of God” comes from scripture, Why would God use the phrase towards humans, if it is a term that means God Himself?
It IS how He said it. He claimed to be THE Son of God, meaning to come directly from God and not a son of God as the Jews were. This would be His claim to be of the same nature as God, the form of a cat begets a cat, the form of a dog begets a dog, the form of God begets God. You do not get a camel from a hippo. Just as you are human, so too were your parents. Jesus was begotten of God, and thus the same form/substance/nature, God. Does that make Him the Father? Nope. My scriptural support comes from many places and we can get into each one if you'd like, but I have given you Matthew 26 and Jesus affirms that He is THE Son of God, THE Christ.
-The high priest claims this is blasphemy. Why do you believe this when in the same passage we are told:
John 11:49,50 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."
So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him?
They wanted false testimony in order to get Jesus killed. Why do you build your case on the evidence of those who opposed Jesus and were prepared to lie to get him killed. You have to read the accusations of the Jewish leaders in the light of the plot to kill him.
Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,
Matt 12:14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
John 7:25,26 Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? (not that this is God!).
Keep reading in your quote of Matthew 26, in verse 60 specifically. It says they did not find this false testimony. They did not find anything to prove their want. Their deeds were being done for what? So they would not lose their place among society (John 11:47&48). It was only at verse 63-66 of Matthew 26 did they find anything that could stick, it was Jesus claim to be of the same nature of God, being THE Son of God. Matthew 12:14 only speaks that the Pharisees were getting nervous and started to think about what they could do to stop Jesus. It doesn't say they had made up any lies or false testimony. Your John 7 reference does nothing but confirm that Jesus is the Christ, you have added what you want it to say with "(not that this is God!)." This is an argument from silence.
-If you reread my post you will see that at John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father” – they put their spin to misrepresent what he said. As I pointed out, Jesus used the term “My Father” dozens of times with no adverse reaction. There is nothing blasphemous about calling God “My Father” – it was a trumped up charge.
I understand what you are saying, but I've already discussed this above. The fact that Jesus said "My Father" is true, but when did He say this to the Scribes and Pharisees and they not get angry? He said this to the crowds and to the disciples, but the only times He said this to the Pharisees and Jewish leaders they got angry and wanted to kill Him. So it wasn't like the Pharisees and Jewish leaders heard this and dismissed it as you claim, but rather regular people and the disciples heard it most.
-Again, I believe I have clearly explained the three uses of the term god in scripture. It can be used a) Of the true God, Jehovah (YHWH),
b) Of false gods
Of representatives of the true God (like Psalm 82, John 1:1, Moses)
I have real problems with formatting this post - so please excuse if disjointed.
D.
A representative does not have the fullness of deity, nor is the representative an exact image of God. (Colossians 2:9 & Colossians 1:15) So where does Jesus fit in your three? What other representative in the Bible have these qualities?
-
5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
I included these words because recognizing Jehovah's work in creating His only-begotten son is included in the reasons for assigning Him honor.
Dang it, here I thought I was getting a complement. (Web bot post).
But that does not address the equality of the honor given in the verse. It's not a matter of why, but rather what.
-
19 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
No...I think I'm dealing with an Internet bot, also known as web robot, WWW robot or simply bot, is a software application that runs automated tasks (scripts) over the Internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone.
Why thank you for the complement. However, my point still stands that you cannot have an opinion outside of the watchtower.
"We all must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive whether they seem strategic from a human standpoint or not''.
So you have to accept and obey.
-
42 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
This seems to be following the pattern of Acts 23:7. So, in the famous words of Peter Jones, "for that reason, I'm out!"
Lol, and that is the sole reason why I can not understand jehovahs witnesses. They are not free to have an opinion other than the wt, lest they be cast out of the club.
-
28 minutes ago, Jesus.defender said:
There are multiple writers that were involved with Genesis
Moses is credited with the writing of Genesis by both the Jews as well as Christians. What information do you have that I can review that credits others with this writing.
-
5 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Gospel according to Shiwiii?
Well, it seems it just comes down, once again, to opinion. I'm actually disappointed by this.
You do realize that Moses wrote Genesis, not Abraham, right? This was done under God's inspiration right?
-
11 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:
Jesus and the Jews were well aware of the prophecy that God would have a Son - he would be a descendant of David - the fruit of his loins. Not a divine being.
I agree with the first part, however scripture never says not a divine being.
Your quote from 2 Samuel says, He will be a descendant of them, come from their people.
11 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:Scripture is clear that by the term "Son of God" in the sense Jesus uses it, means a specific human descendant of David.
You have no evidence that "Son of God" meant "God Himself." other than quoting the opposers of Jesus and trinitarian dogma.
You have also given IMHO no satisfactory explanation as to why, when accused of claiming to be God, Jesus' should immediately point out that
a) humans could be called gods without it meaning they were claiming to be the true God, and
b) he was claiming to be the Son of God (not God Himself).
In John 5 the Jewish leaders claimed that Jesus
a) broke the Sabbath, and
b) made himself equal with God by calling him "his own Father".
You are assuming how Jesus used the term. Like I said, and it seems you have discarded, is that the Jews themselves believed they were sons of God. So this is not something new. The difference isn't what Jesus said, but how He said it. Jesus was a Jew, so He would be considered a son of God just as the Jews were. That isn't what Jesus said, He said He was the Son of God. Look over at John 19:7, the Jews pointed out that they had a law, and by this law they were to kill Jesus. What was this law? Leviticus 24:16 is what is referenced in most Bibles at John 19:7. This is talking about blaspheming the name of Yahweh. How did Jesus blaspheme the name of Yahweh? The Jews spelled it out in the accounts in John, because He said He was the Son of God, thus making Himself of the same nature, God.
a) yes, I agree
b) see above
a&b) yes, look also at John 19:7 and Matt 26:63-66, specifically verse 65.
11 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:The Jewish leaders misquoted him, in order to set the people against him.
Where is the misquote what verse? I mean right there in Matthew 26 Jesus affirmed their accusations.
11 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:I didn't address your question as to whether Satan was a false god, as the point is was making is that there is a third use of "god" in scripture - you only allowed two - a false dichotomy. Satan is not in the category which allows for representatives of God to be called gods. He would be a false god.
What are the three uses of god then? Please categorize The Father, Jesus, Satan, Moses and kings. Maybe this will help me understand your point of view better and allow me to ask better questions.
-
4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
So did Abraham not name that place?
Gen.22:14. "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh ( יְהוָה יִרְאֶה ): as it is said to this day."
What did God tell Moses at Exodus 6:2&3?
So what we have is a contradiction, or so it seems. However, our belief in the Bible tells us that there cannot be a contradiction. Moses wrote Genesis, Moses knew Gods name, Moses also wrote most of Exodus. Would Moses put Gods name where it should be, according to inspiration? I'm sure he would.
-
5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Did these know the name? Gen. 4:26.
I don't know, we are only told that Abraham, Issac and Jacob did not. It was Moses who was told, and Moses wrote Genesis.
-
6 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:
It is an academic book (it is based on the Greek text and concentrates on the Greek vocabulary) - you will primarily find it in universities or theological schools. There appear to be copies all across America including Southern California.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation-1-5/oclc/37812629&referer=brief_results
and
https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation/oclc/37686762&referer=brief_results
Word Commentaries are written by reputable theologians with expertise in Biblical languages.
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=hotseries&q=se%3A%22Word+biblical+commentary%22
D
Thank you, I was looking public library.
-
Interesting that there is not a single copy available in any public library in Southern California. Others in the series, but not the ones by David Aune.
-
48 minutes ago, Donald Diamond said:
Where is your evidence that "The statement of being God's Son, does invoke the thought within the Jews that He was making himself out to be God." You appear to be accepting the argument of those who opposed Jesus and wanted him dead as true.
Were the Jews not called sons of God? The book of Deuteronomy tells us that the people of Israel were the sons of God. (14:1 and 32:8 specifically). Why would they make such a fuss over another Jews saying what they already believed? In John 5 there is another description of the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, over basically the same thing. John records why, with the same statement of calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. The Jews were called sons of God so why would they get upset about another Jews saying it? Because it wasn't the same thing. Jesus was saying that God is His direct Father, and this is what both passages tie together, and why the Jews wanted Him dead. It would be blasphemy for a Jews to claim this, but not so to claim to be a son of God. It was not an argument, it was a statement by the Jews.
You never addressed the question with Satan that I brought up, why?
-
no, that is quite alright, thank you though. I will seek it out at the library. I looked for an online link as well and came up empty. I will research and get back to you on any findings I come up with.
-
7 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:
You cannot seriously be suggesting that Moses was a false god. Have you read in scripture what should be done with false gods and those who follow them?
Satan is not a representative of God.
Do you agree that in Psa 82, the judges who represented God are called gods? Do you understand Jesus' argument in John 10 when he quotes this passage to refute the argument that he was making himself God?
D.
I'm saying that Moses was not a god, not in the sense of Isiah 43:10.
Is Satan a god? That is the question. I didn't say he was a representative of God.
I do agree that in Psalm 82 the term "gods" is used of men, and it also shows their inability to be god as described to us by Isiah 43:10. Absolutely Jesus used this to show them that they themselves (men) were called gods, however the argument was not whether or not Jesus was a god like they had been called, but rather that it was not blasphemy when He said He was Gods Son. The statement of being God's Son, does invoke the thought within the Jews that He was making himself out to be God. This is demonstrated by the action they were going to carry out. Jesus wasn't trying to get them on a technicality, but instead was using scripture to support His claim. Others had been called "sons of God", all of Israel for that matter, but that wasn't the same or they wouldn't have wanted to stone Jesus. They would have accepted it just on the fact that Jesus was a Jews also, so His claim would be along the lines of their own. So in the refutation at John 10, Jesus was not claiming to be a man just as all the rest of the Israelite's who had been called gods, but rather to prove His statement true. Jesus being directly from the Father, this was something they could not handle because it would make Jesus God as well.
So then what kind of god is Jesus in John 1:1? A god like Moses?
Is He on par with Satan as far as gods go?
-
6 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:
An interesting comment from a reputable scholarly (trinitarian?) commentary:
David Aune in Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentaries, Nelson, Dallas, 1997, page 365:
“A comparison between the analogous lists of prerogatives in I Chon 29:11 (prerogatives of God) and Dan 2:37 (prerogatives of the king bestowed by God) with Rev 5:11 suggests that the ascription of these prerogatives to the Lamb means, not that the Lamb is thereby venerated as God (similar prerogatives could also be ascribed to kings) but that these qualities are bestowed upon the Lamb by virtue of his investiture.”DAVID AUNE is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the University of Notre Dame. He holds an M.A. from Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, an M.A. from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Among his publications are The New Testament in its Literary Environment and Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (editor).
Food for thought
Can you provide a link so that I may research this as well please?
-
6 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:
Jesus is neither a true god nor a false god. As Jesus explained from Psa 82, "god" is a term that can be used for those who represent Him. Did not YHWH (Jehovah) make Moses god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1 - there is no "as/like" in the original Hebrew)? Was that a true god or a false god?
D
I would call Moses a false god, a representative none the less, but not a god as described in Isaiah 43:10.
would you say the same of Satan? Neither true or false? just a god like Moses?
-
The clarity of equality is in what every creature in heaven and on earth say in verse 13 :
"to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" This here is the subject of the statement, both the Lamb and the one who sits on the Throne. The compound predicate is the "blessing and honor and glory and might" The predicate is describing the subject, there is no differentiation between the Lamb and Him who sits, they both are the subject equally. If this were not the case, then we would have separate lists, one for each the Lamb and Him who sits. Equality of these respects (honor, glory,might and blessing) is demonstrated by the complex subject, but it uses singular verbs.
I understand that this is English grammar , however the same applies in this instance in the Greek grammar.
-
so is Jesus a true god or not? What does John 1:1 speak to you?
-
14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
However, what the honor is due for is related to the role of the subject. For example, the scriptures exhort children to honor their father and mother at Eph. 6:4. Whilst the honor is the same i.e. not less for the mother over the father, it is expressed within the parameters of the role assigned to each parent. e.g. to assign the mother the role as head of the family, and respect her wishes and/or direction over and above (possibly in contradiction to) those of the father, would be DIS-honoring the mother (and the father) within the theocratic structure (1Cor.11:3), regardless of the motive of the one showing such "honor".
I quite agree, the honor given by a child is not different from mother to father,this is because both are respected equally. A child does not know (at a very young age) the different roles each play. I can accept as the child grows older they recognize the different roles, however they still do not honor one more than the other. just as you said, regardless of the motive, honor is equal.
14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:Similarly, showing honor to the Father would mean, respecting Him alone as the Sovereign Lord of the Universe (Ps.83:18); the Creator of all things (Is. 42:5), including His Son Jesus Christ (Col.1:15); the provider and acceptor of the Ransom Sacrifice of His Son's perfect human life (Rom.5:8); the originator of the Kingdom administration (Eph.1:10) which includes the extending of the benefits of that Ransom Sacrifice to all obedient former children of the rebellious Adam and Eve (Acts 25:15); and many other things too numerous to mention here.
showing this honor, as John states Jesus' quote, we must honor the same. I noticed you included the words "including His Son Jesus Christ", why have you included this if you do not believe they should be honored the exact same way?
14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:Showing honor to the Son would include (among many other things not mentioned), acknowledging his unique role in:
This is where you are differentiating honor, separating the equal honor. You have not included the same attributes, which is required by Jesus' statement.
14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:In fact, to suggest that Jesus would consider himself equal to God would do him the greatest DIS-honor (Ph.1:6; comp. Jo.8:49).
I'm not following your references, are you meaning Philippians 1:6? and Job 8:49? there is no Job or Joshua 8:49
2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:Just an additional thought. The context of this assigning of honor to the Son as to the Father in John 5:23 is of course in Jesus assigned role as judge. It is particularly when judging that Jesus is to be shown honor commensurate with that shown to the Father, as Jehovah has given complete authority to Jesus in this aspect. John 5:22 :"For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son." . Jesus' judgement is as if Jehovah was judging and is as binding.
So are you saying that the honor is only because of Jesus role to be judge? How then how do your reconcile the scriptures in Revelation?
Rev 5:12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
Here we see that this same honor is bestowed upon both equally, nothing is mentioned about judging, but rather complete honor, glory (which God has said He would not share) and might. This is equal devotion, equal worship, equality.
-
The passage is exactly that, the equality of honor.
I understand and quite agree with you on the length of this thread. We are going around in circles saying the same thing we just did. None of us is getting through to the other in a way that each of us understands our respective points. I do appreciate the conversation though.
-
17 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
Psalm 82:1, 6
God takes his place in the divine assembly;
In the middle of the gods he judges:
...“I have said, ‘You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.
Is the psalmist talking about false gods here? Are the angelic 'gods' legitimate or not?
The answer is in the very next verse.
"Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes. "
So the psalmist does not consider them legitimate "gods".
14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:So the gods referred to in Psalm 8 appear to be humans with power of judging over other men (thus viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods").
I quite agree with this statement, which makes the argument void in using Psalms 82 as a reference to other true gods.
14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:In the account recorded at John 10:31-39, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82:6 when rebutting the Jews' accusation of blasphemy for calling himself a "god",(their inference on the fact he had said he was God's son). He showed that as the scripture actually referred to humans rightly as gods, there was no crime in his reference to himself as Gods son.
Right, because it was not blasphemy. So now back to Isaiah 43:10, does this apply to those "gods" of Psalms 82? or is it on a different level? It has to be on a different level, otherwise it would be a contradiction on God's part.
"Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me."
So this must be applied to legitimate Gods, wouldn't you agree?
-
3 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:
The text simple says that in relation to authority over judgement and raising the dead, we should honour the delegatee as we would the delegator
yes, but that is not the question. The question is not about why it is about how. How do you honor one more than the other?
3 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:So it is simply not possible for the Father and Son to be equally God while not being equal in authority.
of course it is, Read Philippians 2, what does Jesus empty Himself of? Verse 6 says He was in the form of God. Jesus, when He came to the Earth made Himself humble and He emptied Himself of the form of God. So then, who would He be subject to then? Men? nope, The Father.
-
My question comes from John 1:1. If Jesus is "a god", then He is another god. Thus creating two gods. Is Jesus a legitimate god or is He a false god? The common answer is that satan is a God of this world, ok fine. Does that make satan a legitimate god? Isaiah 43:10 says that there is no God other than He.none formed before or after. So is Jesus a legitimate god or not? If so, then explain why you believe this.
Why do Jehovahs witnesses belive in two Gods?
in Topics
Posted
Where did you show this? and from what scripture?
Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. What does that mean to you? Does it mean that there is something of God that did not dwell in Jesus? please explain.
Jesus' claim of being THE Son of God, means He has the same nature, is of the same substance. You cannot get a zebra from a duck, they are different in nature.
Jesus DID break the Jews Sabbath, but He did not break God's Sabbath. Big difference, but one that helps us see clearly the mind of the Jewish leaders. Each time Jesus said that He was the Son of God to the Jewish leaders/Pharisees and they got angry. Why? You may think it was a false anger to trump op a charge against Him, but you yourself agreed that they could not find any false testimony. So while they might have wanted Jesus gone, they couldn't do it with false testimony or false witnesses, so it had to be true testimony. Jesus statement was true and according to Jewish law, not God's law, this would be considered blasphemy. Does your Bible reference Leviticus 24:16 from John 19:7? Consider why it does. What reason, just because of the word blasphemy? nope, or it would be referenced most other places.
I don't think you are grasping the meaning of what this is saying. Why would the whole nation perish? Because they would lose their position, as in verse 48:
If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
Like I just showed above, they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true. Also, notice how the account is written in John 5:18. This is all written by John, he is not recording a statement by anyone when he wrote this. He was recording the facts, inspired too I might add.
a) According to the Jewish law it is, because it is claiming the same nature as God. That is why it is blasphemous. Lev 24:16
b) This is not even a point actually. Its like saying Jesus didn't speak English so the Bible I use is wrong.
I never said Jesus was the Father, but Scripture says that Jesus has the fullness of deity (all that makes God God) in Himself. If you look in the mirror who's image do you see? If Jesus is the exact image of God, then Jesus is what God looks like. Like I said what other representative has the qualities that Jesus has? None, so He does not fit into that category of your three and He doesn't fit into the false god category either.