@yknot:
Slippery slope there Djeggnog…… Number one the name Jehovah didn’t exist until the ‘j’ was invented a few hundred years ago.....
What "slippery slope"? Do you mean as far back as the 13th century or do you mean during the 19th century? I'm just a bit curious as to what you are saying and not saying here.
So, then, because there was not "J" that would mean, I suppose, that we should be referring to Jesus by another name, that is, other than "Jesus." No one knows how the tetragrammaton "YHWH" was pronounced, because, for one thing, the vowels are unknown. The form of the divine name "Jehovah" (with a "J") in common use today is a translation of the tetragrammaton and a familiarity that the other form "Yahweh" does not, which is a transliteration and not a translation. Perhaps some folks would prefer the form "Yesous" (a transliteration) over "Jesus" (a translation), too. So what's your point? You don't like Jehovah? Then I see no reason you cannot use Yahweh, even though most people recognize the word "Jehovah" over "Yahweh," and certainly Jehovah's Witnesses will not change their name and become "Yahweh's Witnesses."
Trinitarians occasionally do discern distinction in prayer to our Heavenly Father…… sometimes they don’t.
I'm pretty sure that God doesn't hear the prayers of trinitarians, because prayer is a form of worship and they clearly worship God's adversary, Satan, since all worship not properly directed to the Father (Jehovah) through the Son (Jesus) goes to that false god (Satan).
Scriptures cited are left to individual interpretation and can be applied equally against your proposition as you see them to support it.
You can subject any scripture in the Bible to your own private interpretation, if that is what you wish to do, but I believe Joseph said it pretty well: "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8) Interpret away, but only one of God's ministers having God's spirit can properly guide you in interpreting what things you read in the Bible. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 8:29-34)
Don't forget we as Witnesses don’t dispute divine nature, there is an issue however as not being co-equal regarding Father and Son.
Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I don't recognize you as such since it would appear that from your mouth there extrudes an expression that argues on behalf of a false doctrine. Who do you mean by "we"?
Speaking of "divine nature," since you brought it up for some reason, let me ask you this: Do you believe Jesus alone to have the divine nature or do you believe the other angels of God have the divine nature? Your answer to this question would be telling.
@UnDisfellowshipped:
God The Father CREATES other types or species, but He can only BEGET the SAME NATURE AS HIMSELF.
So would it surprise you to learn that Jesus has the same divine nature as his Father, Jehovah?
In John 1:1, when it says the Logos was "a god" in the BEGINNING with God, what kind of "god" was He? Remember, John says the Logos was "a god" BEFORE one thing ever came into existence (John 1:3). So, then, we can rule out that the Logos was "a god" in the sense of being a representative or spokesman of God, because there were NO other creatures to speak to.
Did you proofread what you wrote? Forget about the sense of Jesus having been God's spokesman. By your "logic," we can rule out Jehovah being "a god," too, because there were no other creatures to whom God could speak, right?
So, according to the New World Translation, The Logos had the SAME DIVINE NATURE as God IN THE BEGINNING. So, I would love to see djeggnog try to explain that away, claiming the Logos was not a "REAL GOD" until after His resurrection.
You have not once tied me up in knots because you don't know enough to tie me up in knots, for in defending the Trinity doctrine, you're always going to be in Silly Land. I have told you not to post the sources for the definitions you use on my account (unless, of course, you do this to grandstand before the Jehovahs-Witnesses.net audience, which, I think, makes you kind of an exhibitionist), for there is no need for you to do so. There is nothing for me to "explain ... away" here, for Jesus was a real God bodily, not just as far as incorruptibility, but when God resurrected Him, Jesus possessed the divine quality of a real god, immortality, which is why his realization of Jesus having been resurrected struck him so hard causing him to exclaim what he did at John 20:28, because it was at that point that he realized that after his death and resurrection, that he himself was truly going to become an immortal God like Jesus.
So what kind of "god" was He in the beginning? A FAKE GOD? A true God? A half-god? A mini-god? Or, did the Inspired John choose the WRONG words to descibe the Logos?
In the beginning, when his prehuman existence began at his begettal by God, Jesus was an angelic god, not unlike the others angels or "godlike ones" (Psalm 8:5 [hebrew, elohim]) that came into existence after his creation. At Hebrews 2:7, to remove all doubt as to what these godlike ones were to whom the psalmist was referring, the apostle Paul quotes Psalm 8:5 and refers to them as "angels." Yes, the apostle John at John 1:1 was correct in referring to the Logos as "a god," for he had been, at least, that "in the beginning."
Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Proverbs 8:22-25 proves that "Wisdom" was created by God. But, how could Jehovah's own wisdom have been created? How could there ever be a time when Jehovah did not have His own wisdom? And, how could God "create" His own wisdom?
Do we? I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't believe nor do I teach anyone that wisdom to have been one of God's creations. I would think you were joking around here, @UnDisfellowshipped, except I know that you're dead serious. Jehovah's Witnesses teach, not that wisdom was created by God, but that Jesus is wisdom personified. At Luke 7:35, Jesus is quoted as saying:
All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by all its children.
Is wisdom a parent? Does it have children as does a mother and a father? Or is Jesus using a metaphor, a figure of speech? Or if I were to refer to something being "light as a feather," would you conclude that 100 pounds of feathers to be less in weight than 100 pound of bricks? This last is just a figure of speech, a simile. When someone should embarrass you or make you feel humiliated in a public place (like, say, in a church or, say, at a Broadway show) by throwing up on you, did you ever use hyperbole like "I wish I could die right now!" as a figure of speech, but not really meaning that you wanted to die? I recommend you take a course in English grammar, for although what we read in the Bible books of Proverbs and Luke are written in other languages, these words that you are reading are translated into the English language, and unless you understand the many ways in which the English language might be used, you will hardly understand that language in general is used in this way and that figures of speech are not unique to English or to any particular language at all.
Look! I'm not saying here that you have to have a college degree to reach me, and I'm not trying to unduly cause offense here, but what I am saying is that when you say things like this, when you ask me questions like these, I'm going to treat you the way I treat a chess opponent that I have on the ropes: I'm going to force exchanges so that you have no chance during the end game.
For those who were asking what the Holy Spirit's Name is (and He does have a Name according to Matthew 28: "Go baptizing in the Name of ... the holy spirit"): THE HOLY SPIRIT'S NAME IS JEHOVAH (and this is in the New World Translation) ....
The context, as you can clearly see, is speaking about the Holy Spirit. Then the Apostle Paul says at the end "Jehovah is the Spirit", while at the same time, showing a distinction among the different Persons, by also saying "The Spirit of Jehovah."
The holy spirit doesn't have a name, and you are the first trinitarian that I've met that has actually thought it to be a good idea to put this out there. The holy spirit is God's active force, it's how God gets things done (among other things). For example, God's spirit is the life force in you that is sustained by breathing.
While the law isn't a person, but it is by means of the spirit of that law, which is promulgated by government officials that empower its officers to carry out their in law enforcement that they have the authority to issue commands to the citizens that they have sworn an oath to serve "in the name of the law." Jesus, too, has been granted authority (he said so at Matthew 28:18-20) by God to give to his followers the commission to make disciples in the name of the Father, Jehovah being the Sovereign over everyone and everything, in the name of the Son, Jesus, as king, ransomer and high priest, and in the name of the holy spirit, which is the active force of God that motivates God's theocratic organization to preach the heavenly kingdom of God and the coming end of this system of things. Notice the holy spirit isn't a person.
No, rather, the context of 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 is the Christian ministry that has "like mirrors" transformed Christians into the God's image, as we reflect God's glory in our ministry. True, "Jehovah is the Spirit," so although every other one of the angels in heaven are also spirits, Jehovah is the Great Spirit, but those turning to Jehovah with unveiled faces are the ones that are reflecting like mirrors God's glory as we "are transformed into the same image from glory to glory" because of the spirit of Jehovah the [Great] Spirit" that we have received. God's ministers see God's glory through the eyes the faith and we hear His voice through the pages of the Bible.
Indeed those that do not turn to Jehovah today are not doing His will being unable to see God's glory as long as they continue to wear a veil upon their hearts just as you are doing in pursuing this mindless doctrine, just as the sons of Israel could not see God's glory because Moses had to wear a veil upon his face because the rays being emitted from Moses' face made it hard for them to turn their hearts and minds toward Jehovah, they being self-willed and too stubborn to "gaze intently" at God's glory so that they instead are glorifying false doctrines like that of the Trinity.
Why do you feel the need to bring up many, many off-topic things that are irrelevant to this discussion, such as:
[1] Once Saved, Always Saved is a False Doctrine.
[2] You must be participating in preaching the Good News in connection with God's "Channel of Communication" in order to be saved.
[3] People stealing computers.
[4] Penises.
[5[ Fornication.
[6] Contradicting yourself and saying that actually, Jesus only requires you to be meek and teachable, and that the truth is not found in "The Channel of Communication"'s publications.
[7] Posting at least three different posts in this thread which were not much more than an advertising campaign for the Jehovah's Witnesses. (Although, I've got to admit, I enjoyed reading that one post where you said that JW teachings can change every few months and "the truth" they were teaching 6 months ago may no longer be "the truth")
[8] Disfellowshipping.
[9] Jesus was a spirit when He was resurrected.
[10] The "spirit" Jesus spoke of at Luke 24:37-39 was a demon.
What does ANY of that have to do with this topic of the Trinity?
I was speaking as a concerned elder, because many of the folks here are dedicated Christians that have either been disfellowshipped or disassociated themselves from association with God's people, and some might have become disapproved associates, and I have a concern -- so as not to appear immodest, I'll let you judge whether my concern is genuine -- for their future prospects. But I did indicate toward the beginning of my post to which you are referring and making a federal case of it that I was making a digression from the topic and so I was aware that single post was totally off-topic. Here's what I wrote:
Ok, I'm going to be responding to this and to the rest of your questions momentarily, but before I do so, I'm going to digress here a moment, @Undisfellowshipped, and then pick up from where this digression began in a subsequent post.
Please do not pretend that I didn't properly preface my remarks in that post or that you had no manifest ability to skip reading that post if you didn't want to read it. I wasn't really addressing you, but everyone that had either been a participant or just lurking this thread. You don't like my style, then that's tough and I believe you need to grow up, @UnDisfellowshipped. An adult (such as I am!) doesn't need to seek your permission to speak. Furthermore, I don't permit you or permit anyone at all to dictate to me how I post or the content of my posts, but you and everyone else here was appropriately warned that I was digressing in that post from your topic.
The meaning of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13-14 is that Jesus is NOT one of the angels who were created by The Father and The Son. The Greek experts agree on this.
This sounds to me like your opinion disagrees with mine for Jesus is one of the angels to whom the apostle Paul refers at Hebrews 1:5 and at Hebrews 1:13.
Since you yourself admitted that you are NOT a Greek expert, then I would ask you to provide a Greek expert who supports your belief. If you can provide me with ANY bona fide Biblical Greek expert or scholar who says that Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13-14 are INCLUDING Jesus as being one of the angels, then I will consider that possibility.
I do not care whether you are willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong, because it seems to me that you have made up your mind and are convinced that you are correct in your view, and I have no problem with that.
Until then, I am sticking with what EVERY SINGLE Greek expert and scholar I have seen has said about those verses: Namely, Jesus is NOT one of those created angels.
I'm ok with your having your own beliefs, @UnDisfellowshipped. This is just a discussion in which we are exchanging our opinions with one another and nothing more. I have no designs in mind on perhaps convincing you or anything. If you could be persuaded to believe otherwise, then I wouldn't respect you as being a trinitarian, for die-hard trinitarians cannot be persuaded by anyone at all to accept the truth that the Bible teaches about the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. I've been a Christian minister, even one of Jehovah's Witnesses, for a very long time, and I'm actually just using you to talk to everyone else here that is reading this thread to maybe give them something about which to think and ponder.
Also, can you provide ANY Scriptures which say that a person only becomes a "REAL GOD" when they have immortality, and can you provide ANY Scriptures which say that "Immortality" is THE DEFINING characteristic of being a "REAL GOD" or a "TRUE GOD"?
I have done that, but if you didn't bother to read them, or if you don't wish to go back to find them, I'm ok with that. I've been very disappointed that you have demonstrated during this thread that you do not read my posts very carefully, and so even if I would be otherwise inclined to repeat what I said to you in a previous post, I'm no interest at this time in doing so.
Even if "Immortality" was the defining characteristic of being a "REAL GOD" (which it is not), then you still have a problem with your belief.
Really? Is that right?
You claim that after Jesus' resurrection, God granted Him immortality and thus He became a "Real God", a "God in His own right." Okay, so according to you, from then on there have been TWO Real Immortal Gods that Christians serve.
Christians worship the true God, Jehovah, but in serving the interests of the kingdom of His son, Jesus Christ, they honor the king.
But you have a HUGE problem with this belief, because AFTER Christ's resurrection, the Inspired "New Testament" teaches that there is ONLY ONE GOD FOR CHRISTIANS:
James 2:19 (NWT): You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well.
1 Corinthians 8:4-5 (NWT): there is no God but one. ... there is actually to us one God ...
Read the context of these two verses. In both instances, James and Paul were talking about Jehovah, the true God.
Just pointing out a few contradictions you posted in this thread. Perhaps you can explain and clarify for us what you actually mean.
Ok.
First you said that Jesus was NOT a god at all until He was resurrected, then you changed it and said that He was not a "real god" until He was resurrected.
Quote the post where I so stated. In Jesus' prehuman existence before his life was transferred to the womb of his human mother (Mary), Jesus had been a god in heaven; in fact, I believe he was archangel Michael, or IOW, the chief angel in heaven, even "The Word of God." But when he was born here on earth becoming Jesus and was later baptized in water by his second cousin John ("the Baptist") in the Jordan River whereupon he was also baptized in holy spirit, Jesus became the Christ, but he was still a human being until after his death and resurrection by God, when he was given both incorruptibility and immortality, at which time he thus become a God.
When I pointed out that neither of those beliefs harmonize with what "the Channel of Communication" teaches in their publications, you then claimed that "the truth" is NOT found in their publications, and the beliefs taught by the "Channel of Communication" change every few months.
The truth is found in God's word, the Bible, and not in the literature that Jehovah's Witnesses publish and distribute. We do our best to publish articles that are 100% in harmony with Bible truths, but whenever Jehovah's Witnesses should get something wrong, we do not seek to change the wording in the Bible or to put a spin on the words it contains, but we abandon what things we may have published in the past (since what things we publish are progressive and are based on our then-current understanding of the Bible) and publish whatever adjustments must be made at that time in our literature. IOW, we see no need to recall our literature because of typos or due to a wrong understanding we may have had on a particular scriptural passages or some doctrinal matter. At no time do Jehovah's Witnesses make the claim that what we print is infallible, nor have we ever done so, for what is infallible is the word of God and it is the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses recognize as the truth. (John 17:17)
However, at the beginning of this thread, you said to me that I could NEVER correctly understand the truths of God's Word unless I was connected to the "Channel of Communication." So, which is true?
So are you here accusing me of lying to you?
Jesus does have a Father who is also the God of Jesus. But, just as a human son shares in human nature with his father, so Jesus shares in God-Nature with His Father.
No; this makes no sense. You have invented something called "God-Nature" when the apostle Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 15:40, 44, that there are "heavenly bodies and earthly bodies" and that "there is physical body, [and] there is also a spiritual body." There is no such thing as "God-Nature," except in your own mind.
A human son is 100% fully human. The Son of God is 100% fully God.
While is it true that a human son is 100% fully human, you are here making "God" into something that doesn't exist at all. This statement is in line with your belief that there is such a thing as "God-Nature," but the angels of heaven are made of the same "stuff" (for lack of a better word) of which "Jehovah the Great Spirit" is made, for, as Jesus stated at John 4:24, "Jehovah is a Spirit." Rather, Jesus, "the Son of God," is like Jehovah -- like all of the angels in heaven -- a spirit, and I would agree with you that Jesus is "100% fully God" -- since Jesus is an immortal God -- if I didn't know that what you meant by describing Jesus as such that Jesus has something called a "God-Nature," as to which the Bible doesn't teach.
Just as a human son inherits his father's family name, so Jesus inherits The Father's "Family Name" of JEHOVAH (YHWH).
I didn't read that at Hebrews 1:5, for in this verse what we do read about this particular angel of God is that the psalm (at Psalm 2:7) is being applied to Jesus: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father," which makes Jesus "the Son of God." By this token, this would seem to suggest that you also believe that the "Family Name" of the holy spirit is "Jehovah," too, or is the holy spirit a child that is subordinate to Jehovah and Jesus? I'm sure you've thought about all of this before and have an answer, so how do you answer this question? A scripture would be good, too, if you have one.
BTW, in heaven, there is no "family name"; you just made this up. In fact, there is nothing in heaven that resembles "family" in the same way that here among humans we have mothers and fathers and their children comprising the family. There is no male and female in heaven.
@djeggnog
