Examining Scripture to see if Jesus was, and is, God.

by jonathan dough 204 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  isaacaustin

  uggh, Jeremiah, only-begotten, from the Greek word monogenes- means unque,...look at hebrews 11:17-18

  17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son], 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.”

  Isaac was not the only son of Abraham nor was he even the first one born- he was the unque son of Isaac.

  Matt 24:36- only the father knows the day of Jesus return...of course...the father is the source of all decisions and authority while the Son is the perfect agent in carrying them out. That does not equate to a lesser nature, only a lesser position.

  John 14;28- Father greater than Son...not better. See Heb 1 where Jesus was exalted from his human state and made BETTER than the angels- that is nature. The pres is greater than you and I yet not better- we share the same nature.

  Yes Jesus has a God yet is God by nature. Eve had a head- Adam, yet was a head (over Cain). Together Adam and Eve were Cain's head.

  The term son in the Jewish culture had a much deeper meaning- that of identity.

  No the term Trinity is not in the bible, yet the concept sure is.
• 

  jeremiahjs

  it says the word was "a god". Not the Almighty One True Father Creator God. anything you worship is your god, there are many gods, but only One True God, the Father. 1Cor.8:5,6, and one true Lord/King, Jesus Christ.
• 

  jonathan dough

  Jesus being the only begotten son of God means that Jesus was the first thing God created and all he had to create him out of God himself(no other creation's (parts) to use.

  I know you believe this in your heart, but all you did was repeat what they told you to repeat and what you posted earlier as though by mere repetition it would somehow convince us. You haven't put any original thought into it, and never once addressed the issue of the hypostatic union. The Word was not created because He is divine, of the same essence.

  Colossians 2:9 is convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ. It states of Christ that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Green’s Literal Translation). The Greek word for “Godhead” is theotes and means divinity. It “stresses deity, the state of being God (Strong and Vine’s, 115). It is to be distinguished from theiotes which refers to the attributes of God, his divine nature and properties and it is this definition which the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly attach to Col 2:9 when they claim that the Godhead there merely refers to His “divine qualities” (Reasoning, 420). This is manifestly incorrect according to Strong and Vine’s, and what the Jehovah's Witnesses are actually doing is swapping theiotes for theotes. Regarding the Godhead (theotes) at Colossians 2:9:

  In Col 2:9, Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son. Theotes indicates the divine essence of Godhood, the personality of God; (Strong and Vines, 114). [Theotes] stresses deity, the state of being God. (ibid, 115).

  (Theiotes, on the other hand), … refers to the attributes of God, His divine nature and properties. (Strong and Vine’s, 114)

  The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that “[b]eing truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than humans are coequal or all the same age just because they share humanity or human nature” (Reasoning, 421). But that is not necessarily true. If all persons share humanity it does make them all human, and they are all equally “human.” One person is not more or less human than another. So, if the inevitability of death is one aspect of humanity, then all humans die, all are mortal; they are equal in that regard. Similarly, if divinity inherently includes an eternal nature, and Jesus and God are divine, of the same essence (consubstantial), then both are eternal.

  Actually, the Jehovah's Witnesses’ comparison of Jesus with all humans who share humanity is another flawed analogy because Jesus doesn’t share God at all like humans have a share in humanity. Jesus is fully God, and not somehow made God by virtue of the hypostatic union.

  At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be “the very imprint of His (God’s) being” (NAB) (“the very stamp of his nature” (RS) (“the express image of His substance” (Strong and Vine’s, 269).
• 

  Deputy Dog

  it says the word was "a god".

  Only in the NWT (New Way to Twist it.)
• 

  isaacaustin

  Jeremiah, the texts you ar using in Cor are not distinguishing titles, they are used interchangeably- there are many gods and lords to the world but only one to beleivers- he is God and Lord. If you want to use this text to say they are distinguishing titles then there is also only 1 Lord. Yet the Father is called Lord in the NT, Lord of Heaven and earth.

  John 1:1, definite article not there for the second instance of God, the coptic, its presence in the first case covers both instances...no big mystery there
• 

  jonathan dough

  I ran out of room again. Here is the rest of the post for Jeremiah

  At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be “the very imprint of His (God’s) being” (NAB) (“the very stamp of his nature” (RS) (“the express image of His substance” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). The Greek word used here for image, stamp or imprint is charaktar and means an exact copy or representation, and stresses complete, not partial, similarity of essence.

  (2) In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as “the express image of His substance.” The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the imprint. The Son of God is not merely his “image” (His character), He is the “image” or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses. (Strong and Vine’s, 269)

  Accordingly, such equality applies to His eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscient nature, as God and the Word are literally equal to each other with respect to their essential being.

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#27
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Jere,

  it says the word was "a god". Not the Almighty One True Father Creator God. anything you worship is your god, there are many gods, but only One True God, the Father. 1Cor.8:5,6, and one true Lord/King, Jesus Christ.

  O god you can take that verse so many ways,, I don't know why people even quote it to prove anything? Anybody that falls back to that one to prove anything is pathetic.
• 

  lovelylil2

  Jonathan,

  Good job so far with explaining colossians and the I AM verse. I am with you on both of them. I have to go to work but will try to chime in more later tonight or tomarrow morning. Good thread so far. Peace Lilly
• 

  jonathan dough

  Jesus being the only begotten son of God means that Jesus was the first thing God created

  JWs also have a false interpretation of 'begotten' and interpret it as procration. That is also false.

  In a similar vein, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was “begotten” in the sense that he was created or born, which is not a Christian Trinitarian teaching. The Jehovah's Witnesses write:

  Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is to “procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus’ case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?

  Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father. (Should You Believe, Chapter 6)

  Actually, Strong and Vine’s does in fact explain why the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (monogeneses) is used to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham, and how “only-begotten” is used with respect to Isaac at Hebrews 11:17 as subsequently explained.

  One major weakness in the Jehovah's Witnesses’ argument lies in the fact that Isaac was not an only-begotten son in the natural procreative sense since Abraham actually had another son, Ishmael, (and others after Ishmael) who was born before Isaac (Genesis 16:15), so the Jehovah's Witnesses’ reliance on that verse is unfounded. Because Abraham had no less than two sons, “only-begotten” cannot be applied to Isaac as an “only-begotten son,” in the procreative sense because he wasn’t. It applied to him in a religious, legalistic and figurative connotation as he was the only legitimate son; it refers to a non-biological relationship just as Trinitarians teach with respect to the Word.

  It’s the same with the preexistent Christ where “only-begotten” lays stress on characteristics of Christ’s relationship. The phrase “the only-begotten of (from) the Father,” (John 1:14) indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him,” compared to the original traditional rendering where the definite article is omitted (Strong and Vine’s, 67). Strong and Vine’s speaks of a unique relationship and stresses that “begotten” does not imply a beginning of Sonship nor generation as applied to offspring like Isaac, or that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation.

  Monogeneses is translated (1) “only” in (1a) Lk 7:12 of the widow of Nain&am
• 

  jonathan dough

  continued re begotten for Jeremiah

  Monogeneses is translated (1) “only” in (1a) Lk 7:12 of the widow of Nain’s son; (1b) Lk 8:42 of Jairus’ daughter; (2) “only-begotten” (2a) of Jesus in Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9; (2) of Isaac in Heb 11:17; and (3) “only child” in Lk 9:38 of the devil-possessed child.

  (4) With reference to Christ, the phrase “the only begotten of (from) the Father,” Jn 1:14, indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. (4a) In the original the definite article is omitted both before “only begotten” and before “Father,” and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used.

  (4b) The apostle’s object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow apostles had seen. (4c) That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, “from.” (4d) The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word “begotten” does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. (4e) It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.

  (5) We can only rightly understand the term “the only begotten” when used of the Son, in the sense of un-originated relationship. (5a) The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. (5b) The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. (5c) This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not ‘after’ the Father;

  (8) In Jn 3:16 the statement, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son” must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. (8a) The value and greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. (8b) His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. (Strong and Vine’s, 167)

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#27

  Hebrews 1:5 also argues against the Jehovah's Witnesses’ “procreation definition” because “begotten” is used with reference to the enthronement of the existing Christ; an Old Testament parallel to Psalm 2:6-8.

  Lastly, even an English definition of “beget” as applied to Christ means to bring into a special relationship, and not by procreation.

  (10) Beget in English means to bring into a special relationship. The “be” is intensive and “get” means to bring to one’s self. Jesus, as “the only-begotten of the Father” means that even though he had the unique and equal relationship within the Trinity in eternity past, He took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, dwelt among men, was tempted in all ways, yet without sin, submit