by aqwsed12345 71 Replies latest watchtower bible
@Easy Prompt
How can a believer both sin and and not be able to sin at the same time? Doesn't fit WT theology at all does it?
1 John 1: 8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 3: 9 - Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
They did you a favor when they disfellowshipped you. Do you have family still in?
Please calculate for me mathematically:
1 x 1 x 1 = ?
John 14:28
"You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater [meizon] than I."
This is one of Jehovah's Witnesses' favorite cherry-picked Bible verses, a "showy" verse that they bring up to support Jesus' created and angelic nature. But does it truly speak against Jesus' actual deity? The Trinity doctrine asserts that the Son is equal to the Father in divinity but lesser in humanity. The Scripture does not mention both these things without reason, i.e., that the Son is equal to the Father, and at the same time, the Father is greater than the Son - the former due to the form of God, the latter due to the form of a servant, without any confusion. Now the lesser is subordinate to the greater. Therefore, in the form of a servant, Christ is subordinate to the Father.
The Son was indeed "lesser" than the Father as a human, and as the Messiah, as a human, lived in total dependence on the sending God. However, Scripture clearly refers to Jesus as Lord and GOD several times and attributes characteristics to Him that only the true God can possess. Therefore, according to Scripture, He possesses a divine reality with the Father, one God with Him, and is equal in this regard. This interpretation is not excluded by John 14:28, and there are two brief reasons for this:
The context makes clear that this is about the action between the Father and the Son within the Trinity: Jesus talks about His coming from and returning to the Father. The Father is greater since all action within the Trinity originates from Him, as He is the one who sends the Son and the Holy Spirit. The unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well as the sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit by the Father, is emphasized especially in the entire 14th chapter of John's Gospel. Therefore, this statement: "The Father is greater than I" can only be appropriately placed based on Jesus' statement in the same chapter (v. 9) and similar ones: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The Son's subordination to the Father, His emptying during His earthly existence, does not negate His deity. He was God in quality, manifested in the flesh, while limited in quantity as a human.
The text speaks of how the apostles should rejoice that Jesus is going to the Father, justifying it by the Father being greater than Him. Greater, not in divine nature, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and indivisible, but in His human nature. Jesus, in His human nature, was indeed lesser than the Father. So, as a human, He was indeed lesser than Him. The apostles have more reason to rejoice than mourn Jesus' departure because His resurrection glorifies His human nature. The meaning of the verse is: I spoke to you about my departure and return. You mourn the former; but if you would consider my happiness, which is bound with yours, you would rejoice in it; for the Father, to whom I am going, is greater than I, and He gives me the greater thing, the glorification, from a lowly state to a more glorious state, which will have the most joyful consequences for you as well. Christ speaks here of Himself as a human because He is talking about His departure. As the divine Word, He never left the Father's glory, and there can be no talk of the Word going to the Father. However, these words: "The Father is greater than I" are reconcilable with Jesus Christ's divine nature; for the Father is indeed greater than the Son, not in nature and dignity, but insofar as the Son is begotten of the Father.
Sects influenced by Arianism misinterpret this teaching when they relate Jesus' divinity to Jn 14:28 ("...the Father is greater than I"), as if Jesus were essentially lesser than God the Father; of lower rank; or even a created being. Yet Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15, 23).
There is an important reason why Jesus (when characterizing his relationship with the Father) chose to use the expression "meizon," which is translated as "greater," instead of the expression "kreitton," which means "superior." The "meizon" denotes a higher position, while the "kreitton" denotes a higher rank, a superior nature. The difference between these two words can be observed in John 14:12, where we read that believers will perform "greater" (meizon) works than Jesus. Since we know that this verse does not imply that we will perform "greater" works than Jesus's, it is clear from the context that Jesus used the same word when referring to the Father's position (who was in heaven) as opposed to Jesus's position (who was then on earth).
A modern illustration of this kind of relationship can be recognized in the analysis of the Watchtower's own authority structure: A presiding overseer can be said to be "greater" than an elder. Yet with this statement, one does not imply that the elder is inferior to the overseer, but rather that the overseer's authority is "greater" than the elder's. Similarly, it is only Jesus's human nature that can be said to be "greater" than the Father. However, this analogy cannot be applied to the relationship between Jesus and the angels, as in Hebrews 1:4 the other expression is found (kreitton, translated as "better"), used to show that Jesus is "greater" than the angels by nature. The angels and God differ not only in rank but also in nature, in essence. The essential difference leads to the difference in rank.
The Father's position is "greater" than the incarnate Christ, since Christ's humanity is a created reality, though he is equal to the Father in his divinity. His position differed from that of the Father, not his nature. Jesus called the Father greater, not because he is not God, but because Jesus was also a man, and as a man, he was in a lower position.
According to Hebrews 2:9, Jesus was made "lower than the angels" at the Incarnation.
Matthew 11:11 states that "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Does this mean that John has no human nature? Does this mean that those in heaven, who are greater than John, have a different nature? If John the Baptist is the greatest man who ever lived, and Jesus was merely a man, does this mean that John the Baptist was greater than Jesus, in the sense that he was of a higher nature? Does this mean that Jesus and John could not both have possessed human nature?
According to Galatians 4:4, Christ was under the Law. Therefore, as a man, he was in a lower position than the Father but did not differ from him in divine nature. This is the same explanation for why he grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52).
For comparison, a husband is the head of the family, while the wife is not. Though their positions are different, the man has greater power, while their nature is the same. Biblically, the husband enjoys a higher position and authority than his wife. But he does not differ from her in nature, and he is not superior, or higher in order than her. They share human nature, and work together in love. So it is with Jesus as well. His nature is the same as the Father's, but the Father sent Him (John 6:44), and He was in a lower position as a result of the Incarnation, and was under the Law.
According to Philippians 2:5-8, Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men…”
This is what the Athanasian Creed says:
"...our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ."
From the time of His Incarnation, Jesus had a dual nature, taking on human nature as well. Jesus never denied that He was God. He simply acknowledged the fact that He was also human, and subjected Himself to God's laws, thereby redeeming those who were under the Law, namely the sinners (Galatians 4:4-5). Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, He was in a lower position than the Father. He added to human nature (Colossians 2:9). He became man to die for men.
Since Jesus Christ is both true God and true man, two sets of statements can be made about Him: divine and human. Therefore, as a man (the man who is also God), Christ is less than the Father. But in the Trinitarian relations, there may also be a place for the Savior's statement. On the one hand, in the communication of the mystery, the revelation attributes a certain superiority to the Father (by appropriation), since He is generally called God. Furthermore: since the Father is without origin, and the Son is begotten (but not created!), there exists, in the aspect of origin (not nature and essence), a Trinitarian sequence, and thus, according to human understanding and expression, there can analogically be talk of a certain kind of subordination. Meaning
The statement "The Father is greater than I" must therefore be understood on the basis of the meaning of "I am going to the Father." The Son does not go to the Father because He is the Son of God, for as the Son of God, He was with the Father from eternity - thus even when He spoke these words. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (1:1). Rather, we say that He goes to the Father because He has a human nature. Thus, when He says, "The Father is greater than I," He does not say it in the sense of "I, as the Son of God," but as the Son of Man, for in this sense, He is not only less than the Father and the Holy Spirit but even less than the angels: "He was made a little lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). Moreover, in some things, He was subject to humans, such as His parents (Lk 2:51). Therefore, because of His human nature, He is less than the Father, but because of His divine nature, He is equal to Him: "He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:6-7).
We could also say, as Hilary of Poitiers does, that even according to the divine nature, the Father is greater than the Son, yet the Son is not less than the Father but equal to Him. For the Father is not greater than the Son in power, eternity, and greatness, but in the dignity of a giver or source, of origin. For the Father receives nothing from another, but the Son receives His nature from the Father by eternal generation. Therefore, the Father is greater because He gives; but the Son is not less but equal because He receives everything that is the Father's: "He gave Him the name that is above every name" (Phil 2:9). For the one to whom an act of existence (esse) is given is not lower than the giver.
John Chrysostom explained the statement contained in John 14:28 by saying that the Lord said this considering the disciples' opinion, who did not yet know of the resurrection, or did not think that He was equal to the Father. Therefore He said to them: if you do not yet believe me on the basis that I cannot help myself, or do not expect to see me again after my cross, then believe me because I am going to the Father, who is greater than I.
From the beginning, human nature shows a threefold subordination to God. The first refers to the measure of goodness, in the sense that the divine nature is the essence of goodness itself, while the created nature only shares in divine goodness, as if it were subject to the rays of goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to God in terms of God's power, since human nature, like every creature, is subject to the operation of divine ordering. Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to God through its own action, in the sense that it obeys His commands by its own will. Christ confesses this threefold subordination about Himself.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-1428-father-greater-i
Bonus:
| A Study of John 1:1a, b: A Defense of the Deity of Christ Apart from the Argument of 1:1c. |
SeaBreeze: "Do you think it is possible that one verse is talking about your body, and the other verse is talking about a born again believers' new spirit - both of which are "you", individually and/or collectively?"
I don't believe in ancient Egyptian theology, like that "ka" "ba" "akh" thing.
SeaBreeze: "If not, please explain how a believer can both sin and "cannot sin" at the same time."
At Romans 7:21-25 Paul already explained it.
"I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law."
SeaBreeze: "Do you have family still in?"
Aye, captain.
aqwsed12345: "Please calculate for me mathematically:
1 x 1 x 1 = ?"
I can see word problems aren't your strong suit. When adding, you use the addition sign, not the multiplication sign. That's okay, a lot of kids have issues with word problems. You're not alone.😊
aqwsed12345: "We could also say, as Hilary of Poitiers does...John Chrysostom explained the statement..."
I thought we were talking about Romans 9:5? Did I somehow get mixed up onto the wrong thread? I know Jesus, and I've heard of Paul, but who are Hilary of Poiters and John Chrysostom?
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time."
Romans 9:5 is talking about our mediator, the Christ, who came in the flesh, being born in the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That he is a blessing for all is from God. Amen.
"I am telling the truth in Christ; I am not lying, as my conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were separated from the Christ as the cursed one for the sake of my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh, who are Israelites. To them belong the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the sacred service and the promises. To them the forefathers belong, and from them the Christ descended according to the flesh. God, who is over all, be praised forever. Amen."
Just like many Israelites in the first century stumbled over traditions and over-analysis of scripture and missed the big picture, so it is the same today. They couldn't see the forest for the trees.
Love is the important thing. Romans 9:5 is about Love. God sent Jesus because of Love, and Paul was saying "may the Lord be praised because of that love. Amen."
Hope y'all have a nice day. 🥰
@EasyPrompt
If you're already asking about my math knowledge, let me note that I was a multiple math contest winner during my high school years. And for this stupid "1 + 1 + 1 = 3" argument, just that, of course, the fact that there are three divine persons does not mean that there are three Gods, since the three divine persons share the on Deity, they are the subsistences of one Godhead.
"I thought we were talking about Romans 9:5?" - That was the opening theme, but you were the first to refer to John 14:28, and I responded to this in my comment, explaining why this does not support the Arian heresy.
"I know Jesus, and I've heard of Paul, but who are Hilary of Poiters and John Chrysostom?" - It wouldn't hurt to look it up, I think that if you call yourself a Christian, knowledge of the most important figures of the early Christian church is part of general education.
Then you quote the verse 1 Timothy 2:5, also in a NWT translation, "corresponding" is an insertion, not part of the original text. On the other hand, this verse is particularly problematic for the WTS theology, since they believe that Jesus ceased to be human when he died, and that his resurrection actually means recreation, restoration to be an angel.
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"
So if Jesus ceased to be man, then we no longer have a mediator. Let's say that in the case of JWs, he is not mediator for the rank-and-file members (only for the "anointed" class, thus the inner party), to whom the majority of members belong based on the two-class salvation regime invented in 1935.
"If you're already asking about my math knowledge, let me note that I was a multiple math contest winner during my high school years. And for this stupid "1 + 1 + 1 = 3" argument, just that, of course, the fact that there are three divine persons does not mean that there are three Gods, since the three divine persons share the on Deity, they are the subsistences of one Godhead."
"Multiplication" math is different than "addition" math. And word problems are difficult for some people, aqwsed12345, so I understand if it's not easy for you.
The word problem "One God plus one Son plus one holy spirit equals three things" can be expressed mathematically by the equation: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. You don't even need a multiplication symbol!
That's nice that you won some multiple math contests in high school. Good job! 😃 The nice thing about Love is that whether you are a "winner" or a "loser" in math, God is not partial.
"Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger than men. For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."
Romans 9:5 shows that God was not partial to just the Israelites when it came to providing a ransom. Today, He is not partial to just Christians. God will save many who today are non-Christians too by means of the ransom.
"However, it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.”"
Not all who claim to be "Christian" today act like Christians. There are many "non-Christians" today who act more like Christ than some "Christians" do. God knows where they all are, and He will not be ashamed to call them His children.
"For, indeed, while we were still weak, Christ died for ungodly men at the appointed time...God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
@aqwsed12345: 💖🫶💞💝🙂🌷
The fact that God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit does not "sum up the number of gods" (1+1+1 = 3, which would be tritheism), but rather declares the existence of three persons (who are not separate Gods but have one, common nature), always bearing in mind that "there are not three gods, there is only one God."
The fact that God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit does not "sum up the number of gods" (1+1+1 = 3, which would be tritheism), but rather declares the existence of three persons (who are not separate Gods but have one, common nature), always bearing in mind that "there are not three gods, there is only one God."
No one talks about three Gods. The fact that, in accordance with the Bible, we refer to three different persons as God, is not equivalent to the statement that there are three Gods. Since these persons are not three different Gods, as their divinity, their essence, is one, common. The Trinity refers only to the divine persons, not to the one divine essence; that is, there is only one God. What is single in God, we call divine essence or nature; what is three in God, we call person or subject. So, God is three persons in one essence, while Jesus Christ is one (divine) person in two (divine and human) natures. The multiplicity of persons in no way can be contrasted with the unity of essence, although it is true that without revelation, we would have no idea that "personality" and "essence" do not always coincide. From the fact that in us humans the two coincide, it does not follow that the two are conceptually the same thing. In this, there would only be a conceptual contradiction if we said: one essence and yet three essences; one person and yet three persons. But: one essence and three persons are no more contradictory than if I say; three people and one family, or: a hundred soldiers and one company. We are not identifying the three with the one, but the three divine persons with the one God. In this, a conceptual contradiction cannot be demonstrated.
I can see you like multiplication a lot!🙂
I'm not into psychology, but I have heard of something called "multiple personality disorder" that sounds kind of like what you're describing.
1 Corinthians 14:33 says "For God is a God not of disorder but of peace."
(I appreciate, aqwsed12345, that you used your own expressions in that last post - it's a lot easier to read than the cut-n-pasted stuff from other "scholar" peoples' websites. Thank you!)
@aqwsed, I know you said you won some math contests...do you like "absolute value"? It's one of my favorite functions!
Here for you is a complicated explanation of absolute value function (also known as "modulus")...
"An absolute value function is an important function in algebra that consists of the variable in the absolute value bars. The general form of the absolute value function is f(x) = a |x - h| + k and the most commonly used form of this function is f(x) = |x|, where a = 1 and h = k = 0. The range of this function f(x) = |x| is always non-negative and on expanding the absolute value function f(x) = |x|, we can write it as x, if x ≥ 0 and -x, if x < 0." (from cuemath.com)
A simplified definition is that the absolute value of any number is the same number with a positive sign. For example, if you were to take the absolute value of "-1" it would equal positive one. So if a person got like 50 downvotes and you were to take the absolute value of those downvotes it would turn out to be 50 upvotes! 😃
Kind of like in principle described here..."Beloved ones, do not be surprised about the fiery trials that you are experiencing, as though something strange were happening to you. On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory. If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy, because the spirit of glory, yes, the spirit of God, is resting upon you."
Absolute value is a cool function.😎
Aqwsed, as you might have noticed, I interpret the Scriptures quite literally. On the one hand, I view the soul as a living person (or animal). Adam became a living soul when he started breathing (Gen. 2:7). Animals are called living souls (Gen. 1:21). The Bible also refers to a dead soul (Lev. 21:11). The spirit is the life force of that person. When a person dies, the spirit is returned to God (Ecc. 12:7).
On the other hand,
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24)
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Cor. 3:17-18 ESV)
Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45)
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, (1 Pet. 3:18 ESV)
To me it’s quite simple. Like Father, like Son.
there is not a single mention of the fact that this would mean the destruction of Jesus' body and the cessation of being a human.
For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. (Heb. 9:16 ESV). [ For where there is a covenant, the death of the [human] covenanter needs to be furnished. (Heb. 9:16 NWT) ]
When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit. (John 19:30).
Why did he say that? He did what was expected of him. Because he was about to fully accomplish God’s will and fulfill his ministry and prophecy: “to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. (Dan. 9:24 ESV)
In my mind the word “sacrifice” means the death of the victim. There is no other way (cf. Ex. 12:21). And is that not what the memorial is all about, the sacrifice of Jesus' body and blood?
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matt. 26:26-28 ESV)
And the fact that nobody recognized the resurrected Jesus, is also an indication that he rose with a different body. After examining the evidence, the argument of your apologists is unconvincing.
"See references to "Sons of God" .." - At most, your references prove that "sons of God" can mean angels, but they do not prove that it also actually means angels in Genesis 6:2.
It does not disprove it either. So where do the violent Nephilim ("giants"), "the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" fit in then? (Gen. 6:4 ESV)
