Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jehovah’s Witness attacks on Jesus

* If Jesus is God, then who did He pray to?
* If Jesus is God, then why did not know the time of His return?
* If Jesus is God, why did He say the Father was greater than He?

All of the information in the links you provided about Jehovah’s Witnesses is far from the truth. Of course people are going to attack my religion because we regularly expose that most of the Christian doctrines. We’re used to the attack and we expect it and know that none of it is true.

The link that you provided before this one that supposedly answers questions like why did Jesus pray to God?, why did Jesus say the father was greater than he? and why did Jesus say only call God Good?, are all week and nothing new. People who believe in the Trinity can see that when Jesus was on earth he clearly distinguishes himself from God and states that God has greater authority so Trinitarians explain this by saying Jesus was being humble or the week reason provided in that link. Like I said in other post there are clear scriptures that distinguish between God and Jesus before Jesus came to earth and after he went to heaven that clearly show that Jesus is not God Almighty. So we don’t have use any scriptures where Jesus is on earth to show that God and Jesus are two different beings.

Daniel 7:13,14(NIV) is one such scripture.
"13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

This is a prophecy written before Jesus the “son of man” came to earth and the Ancient of Day who gives him the Kingdom is none other that God. The Son of Man cannot be God because he approaches God and God makes him king over the kingdom that Jesus told us to pray for.

So how could Jesus be called a god, a diety and divine? Again the Bible clearly states this at Isaiah 9:6 which was written before Jesus came to earth.
Isaiah 9:6,7(NIV) states:
“6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.”

Jesus is clearly called “Mighty God” but he is also called “Prince of Peace.” The title of “Prince” would never be given to God Almighty. One might ask if Jesus is given the title of Prince then why is he also called King of Kings? If you look at Daniel 7:12,13 these verses show that God gives Jesus a Kingdom that he rules over as king. Is this on God’s throne? No, because Isaiah 9:7 states that Jesus will rule on his forefather David’s throne not God’s throne. God anointed David as king ane he ruled over God’s people right here on earth. David’s dominion did not extend into the heavens. This is exactly what Jesus kingdom will do. Jesus’ kingdom will be a heavenly kingdom that will rule over God’s people on earth. So he will still be a king but he will also be subject to God as 1 Corinthians 15:28 states which would make him a prince under God.

If the above is not enough to prove that Jesus was divine in nature but still different from God then Phillipians 2:5-8(NAB, the Catholic Bible orginators of the Trinity doctrine) should.

"5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, 6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; 5 and found human in appearance, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross."

The above verses clearly explain how Jesus could be divine, a diety and called god. They also show that before Jesus came to earth he was distinctly different from God and not equal to God.

Is it any different when Jesus goes back to heaven after he is resurrected? No. Just before Stephen is stoned he catches a glimpes of heaven. Does Stephen see Jesus sitting on God’s thrown as God Almighty himself. Absolutely not. Does Stephen see the holy spirit which is supposed to be an equal part of the Trinity in heaven? Absolutely not.
Act 7:56, 57 (NIV) states:
"54 When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Come on now. I shouldn’t have to say anymore. All of the scriptures I used was from translations that we don’t use and none of them are from the gospels when Jesus was on earth. They clearly show that Jesus was prophecied to be called god but never is he given the title of God Almighty, it is prophesied that Jesus would be given a kingdom by God and he would rule on David’s throne; not Gods. They clearly show that before Jesus came to earth he was in God’s form as a spirit being and when he went back to heaven he was in God’s form at his right hand.

So yes Push the pre-human Jesus is mentioned all throughout the Hebrew scriptures. None of the links you provided are as clear as the scriptures I used above or the below scripture:
1 Corinthians 15:24-28(NIV):
“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

Bury me with scriture Push, come on. Try to explain any of the scriptures above. I’m betting you’ll again run and hide on the “Serious Relgious Debate thread.”[/quote]

Now I am going to post Hebrews 1:5-14 again just to refute that Jesus is an Angel. I do this to point out that you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly so your idea of the trinity not existing is incorrect.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father[a]”[b]? Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”[c]? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”[d] 7In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire.”[e] 8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[f] 10He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”[g] 13To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”[h]? 14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

I love verse 8 where God says to the Son, "Your throne, Oh God, will last forever and ever. God is calling the son God. This is no longer Jesus claiming to be God, but Jehovah saying that Jesus is Jehovah. Very facinating.

M&M and HL you still have not commented on the Genesis chapter 18&19 question dealing with your translation of the Bible. Who is Jehovah? Abraham calls all three men Jehovah in chapter 18. Two of them run to Sodom and Ga’Morah and spend time with Lot. Lot calls the two men Jehovah. Who is Jehovah by using the translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]

So, based on Segment 1 of your article, would the following then not be an acceptable variation?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “a” god, and the Word was “a” god.

For some reason that article didn’t give this third variation and chooses to only put the indefinite before the second usage. Obviously since “the” is used before “Word”, it makes it a definite.

Since there is no Greek definite before either appearance of “god”, shown by the fact the English “the” isn’t applied, shouldn’t an “a” be place before BOTH usages of “god”, not just the last one? This makes “god” in the passage an indefinite altogether, and not THE God.
[/quote]

John 1:1 literally translated from the above:
in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and god was the word[/quote]

Literally translated from what, exactly. My example, or the verse you posted previously?

[/quote]

Sorry, that was just an excerpt from the website I gave, and you referenced. It was the part explaining what you brought up.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

I see your point, but if we rely on that God inspired the writers to write the Bible, we have to rely on God’s inspiration on the translators to translate correctly.

So in saying that by using the two examples that you used, I am going to go with the translators ability to translate correctly as we have had it for centries than your new translation brought about in about 1950 to fit your doctrine.

I really want to know what your thoughts are on Genesis chapters 18 & 19 and who is Jehovah. Is it 3 people, 2 people, 1 person, or is your translation incorrect on this part?[/quote]

D, note that you said you are going to trust the translation you use (NIV). When was that published?

Don’t say one is right and one is wrong until you looked into it. Get the blinders off, seriously, and do the work yourself into researching what is correct. We are commanded to do that at Acts 17:11.

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

You need to examine the scripture and in this case make sure that the translation is correct.

[/quote]

HL, as stated in the other thread, 17 Christian translations as found on Bible.cc show that the NIV is the exact same on John 1:1 stating the “Word was God.” Only yours and two others which you guys can not prove are Christian translations or which church uses it states “was a god,” and the other two translations are not on Bible.cc.

I would say I have examined every Christian translation because they all say “Word was God.” Nothing more to research.[/quote]

Look at the link I posted. It has what you need to understand how the Bible is translated from the Greek to the English.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
M&M and HL you still have not commented on the Genesis chapter 18&19 question dealing with your translation of the Bible. Who is Jehovah? Abraham calls all three men Jehovah in chapter 18. Two of them run to Sodom and Ga’Morah and spend time with Lot. Lot calls the two men Jehovah. Who is Jehovah by using the translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?[/quote]

If you give me some verses, I will do some research on them, and get back to you.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Now I am going to post Hebrews 1:5-14 again just to refute that Jesus is an Angel. I do this to point out that you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly so your idea of the trinity not existing is incorrect.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father[a]”[b]? Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”[c]? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”[d] 7In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire.”[e] 8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[f] 10He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”[g] 13To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”[h]? 14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

I love verse 8 where God says to the Son, "Your throne, Oh God, will last forever and ever. God is calling the son God. This is no longer Jesus claiming to be God, but Jehovah saying that Jesus is Jehovah. Very facinating.[/quote]

Didn’t mse2us comment on this one already?

I have two questions about Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs:

  1. Why don’t JWs want blood transfusions? I understand they cite scripture, but I still don’t understand why it’s such a big deal. One of my friends growing up needed a bone marrow transplant. Without it, she would have died (she had Leukima). Would you truly reject such a treatment?

  2. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I have two questions about Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs:

  1. Why don’t JWs want blood transfusions? I understand they cite scripture, but I still don’t understand why it’s such a big deal. One of my friends growing up needed a bone marrow transplant. Without it, she would have died (she had Leukima). Would you truly reject such a treatment?

  2. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.[/quote]

I could, and will if required, explain both of those things to you. But I feel that mse2us could do a MUCH more thorough explanation of it. He has a better gift with words.

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Your greek to english is above. And if you don’t understand how my earlier reference about the corrupted texts and translations ties into the very heart of the matter you’re dense. You need not make wholesale changes. A simple greek “a” for instance, can be the difference in doctrine. And you can’t keep referring to the already translated scriptures to have your “debate” as some of you here are want to do…because you keep arguing over corrupted material. Among you, you cannot even agree on the meaning of the scriptures you quote.

It is one thing to have “faith” in something you cannot touch, or see. It is quite another, to have faith in a number of writers, copiers, forgers, church leaders and translators.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
M&M and HL you still have not commented on the Genesis chapter 18&19 question dealing with your translation of the Bible. Who is Jehovah? Abraham calls all three men Jehovah in chapter 18. Two of them run to Sodom and Ga’Morah and spend time with Lot. Lot calls the two men Jehovah. Who is Jehovah by using the translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?[/quote]

If you give me some verses, I will do some research on them, and get back to you.[/quote]

all of 18 includes a conversation with Abraham and three men. He uses the term Jehovah when talking to them. In verse 5 all three respond. Two leave one stays, Abraham continues calling the one Jehovah. In 19:18 Lot address them as Jehovah. in 19:21 “He” responds on what he will allow lot to do. There is no correction of being called Jehovah. Which anytime a clearly defined Angel is praised by a man, the Angel almost always stops that person and says praise belongs to God.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I have two questions about Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs:

  1. Why don’t JWs want blood transfusions? I understand they cite scripture, but I still don’t understand why it’s such a big deal. One of my friends growing up needed a bone marrow transplant. Without it, she would have died (she had Leukima). Would you truly reject such a treatment?

  2. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.[/quote]

They do in fact reject certain medical procedures. I handled an insurance case with a JW as a plaintiff. They constrain physicians with their beliefs which I guess is their religious right, but they have no reservation about suing that doctor when he cannot act according to the practice of medicine. Lady almost lost her life, because she would only accept blood products in accordance with their strict doctrine.

GET OFF MY DOOR STEP!!!

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

That’s why I like the ESV version. They went to the original language texts and did word for word translations only altering enough to make it readable. It’s the closest thing to reading the original languages your going to get with out learning them.[/quote]

Acts 28:6 (ESV)

They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

…was a god <— indefinite article

John 1:1 (ESV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…the Word was God <— no indefinite article

Both have the same Greek structure, but have different English translations.

[/quote]

I look it up when I get home. Usually if there is a possible alternate structure it in the notes.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I have two questions about Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs:

  1. Why don’t JWs want blood transfusions? I understand they cite scripture, but I still don’t understand why it’s such a big deal. One of my friends growing up needed a bone marrow transplant. Without it, she would have died (she had Leukima). Would you truly reject such a treatment?

  2. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.[/quote]

Sounds good, I’m in no rush. Thank you.

I could, and will if required, explain both of those things to you. But I feel that mse2us could do a MUCH more thorough explanation of it. He has a better gift with words.[/quote]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
M&M and HL you still have not commented on the Genesis chapter 18&19 question dealing with your translation of the Bible. Who is Jehovah? Abraham calls all three men Jehovah in chapter 18. Two of them run to Sodom and Ga’Morah and spend time with Lot. Lot calls the two men Jehovah. Who is Jehovah by using the translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?[/quote]

If you give me some verses, I will do some research on them, and get back to you.[/quote]

all of 18 includes a conversation with Abraham and three men. He uses the term Jehovah when talking to them. In verse 5 all three respond. Two leave one stays, Abraham continues calling the one Jehovah. In 19:18 Lot address them as Jehovah. in 19:21 “He” responds on what he will allow lot to do. There is no correction of being called Jehovah. Which anytime a clearly defined Angel is praised by a man, the Angel almost always stops that person and says praise belongs to God.[/quote]

Thank you very much, I will research it. What are your takes on it?

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

I see your point, but if we rely on that God inspired the writers to write the Bible, we have to rely on God’s inspiration on the translators to translate correctly.

So in saying that by using the two examples that you used, I am going to go with the translators ability to translate correctly as we have had it for centries than your new translation brought about in about 1950 to fit your doctrine.

I really want to know what your thoughts are on Genesis chapters 18 & 19 and who is Jehovah. Is it 3 people, 2 people, 1 person, or is your translation incorrect on this part?[/quote]

D, note that you said you are going to trust the translation you use (NIV). When was that published?

Don’t say one is right and one is wrong until you looked into it. Get the blinders off, seriously, and do the work yourself into researching what is correct. We are commanded to do that at Acts 17:11.

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

You need to examine the scripture and in this case make sure that the translation is correct.

[/quote]

HL, as stated in the other thread, 17 Christian translations as found on Bible.cc show that the NIV is the exact same on John 1:1 stating the “Word was God.” Only yours and two others which you guys can not prove are Christian translations or which church uses it states “was a god,” and the other two translations are not on Bible.cc.

I would say I have examined every Christian translation because they all say “Word was God.” Nothing more to research.[/quote]

Look at the link I posted. It has what you need to understand how the Bible is translated from the Greek to the English.

[/quote]

I read the link, and I understand the argument from that perspective, but I think it still leaves it open. For instance what if John did want to indicate that Jesus was God. in that verse. What wording structure would he have used? If it is the same, then are we not both conceding that it is a tit for tat argument?

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
M&M and HL you still have not commented on the Genesis chapter 18&19 question dealing with your translation of the Bible. Who is Jehovah? Abraham calls all three men Jehovah in chapter 18. Two of them run to Sodom and Ga’Morah and spend time with Lot. Lot calls the two men Jehovah. Who is Jehovah by using the translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?[/quote]

If you give me some verses, I will do some research on them, and get back to you.[/quote]

all of 18 includes a conversation with Abraham and three men. He uses the term Jehovah when talking to them. In verse 5 all three respond. Two leave one stays, Abraham continues calling the one Jehovah. In 19:18 Lot address them as Jehovah. in 19:21 “He” responds on what he will allow lot to do. There is no correction of being called Jehovah. Which anytime a clearly defined Angel is praised by a man, the Angel almost always stops that person and says praise belongs to God.[/quote]

Thank you very much, I will research it. What are your takes on it?[/quote]

Well I am reformed orthodox so for me I would say it at the bare minimum points to the possibility of a trinity, but is not conclusive proof. I am curious to see what the official response to it is though.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

  1. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.[/quote]

Apparently Satan and his angels were cast down to earth on 10/1/1914 and that when the end times began. Apparently he was otherwise occupied the previous 19 centuries.

Now being biblical literalists and all, where in the scripture is this date written as this event occurring?

[quote]haney1 wrote:

I read the link, and I understand the argument from that perspective, but I think it still leaves it open. For instance what if John did want to indicate that Jesus was God. in that verse. What wording structure would he have used? If it is the same, then are we not both conceding that it is a tit for tat argument?

[/quote]

It wouldn’t have been the same. Greek has a definite article.
John 1:1

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and god was the word

To mean what you are saying it would have read something like:

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and [i]the[/i] god was the word

Notice the insertion of the definite article after the second god? That isn’t there in the Greek.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

I read the link, and I understand the argument from that perspective, but I think it still leaves it open. For instance what if John did want to indicate that Jesus was God. in that verse. What wording structure would he have used? If it is the same, then are we not both conceding that it is a tit for tat argument?

[/quote]

It wouldn’t have been the same. Greek has a definite article.
John 1:1

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and god was the word

To mean what you are saying it would have read something like:

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and [i]the[/i] god was the word

Notice the insertion of the definite article after the second god? That isn’t there in the Greek. [/quote]

Interesting, I will have to look into the justification of the translators as to why edit they think it should be translated that way. After all the Bible at some point no matter how close it tries to stay to the original is still going to be translated idea for idea. So I would be curious as to see what conveys that to them.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Now I am going to post Hebrews 1:5-14 again just to refute that Jesus is an Angel. I do this to point out that you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly so your idea of the trinity not existing is incorrect.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father[a]”[b]? Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”[c]? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”[d] 7In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire.”[e] 8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[f] 10He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”[g] 13To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”[h]? 14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

I love verse 8 where God says to the Son, "Your throne, Oh God, will last forever and ever. God is calling the son God. This is no longer Jesus claiming to be God, but Jehovah saying that Jesus is Jehovah. Very facinating.[/quote]

Didn’t mse2us comment on this one already?
[/quote]

He said it was a good point and he needed to do more research. Then you guys changed the subject.