I do not think the JW approach is the right one.[/quote]
We are not forceful people (at least most of us). If you don’t agree, you don’t agree. I supplied the facts (meaning I supplied scripture and tried to explain very little) and people must carry their own load.
You have been a reasonable guy (at least with me) and I respect that and wish you the best in that regard.[/quote]
Hey man, I think it’s fine if we discuss and disagree in a reasonable manner. I do not and will not condemn you and I thank you for not doing the same. We won’t agree, but if you don’t try to change me, I won’t change you. I love God, and I know you love God. Whether who’s right and who’s wrong, that always gets us through.
Now, infidel! Think the way I do or you’re going to hell!!!
Seriously, I refer peace among the God fearing…
Here’s the problem, Honest. The disassembly of the Trinity is central to your faith. I do not think the JW approach is the right one. One of the main reasons is that it required rewriting scripture to fit the notion. Ultimately, I think your a good dude, and I really don’t feel the need to convert you or make you believe something else. I think it is sufficient that you know and are shown examples that the trinity is a scriptural concept. I don’t think it’s necessary to give up your faith unless you find it lacking in someway.
Just know that the Trinity is not believed with out due cause and has been central to Christianity for centuries.[/quote]
I assure you that nothingthat is done in the NWT is unique. Meaning, there are many other Bibles that have done the same thing. I am confident that every example of “changed scripture” presented I could show other Bibles doing the same thing. (I have already) I think the difference is that when the ‘founders’ of the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses sat down to figure out the doctrine, they didn’t do so with preconceived notions. That is what attracted me to it so much. They sat down with a bunch of people and picked a topic and found all the scriptures related to that topic and then discussed it to come up with a resolution. I am a very logical guy and so I was drawn to an organization that was/is the same way. No question I have every had has been answered with “just have faith” or thereabouts (not saying that yours have) and there is always scriptural backing to everything we do. [/quote]
Oh I certainly agree, there are many translators of the Bible who have taken liberties. I am therefore most attracted to the ESV (English Standard Version). The mission, on the onset was to go back to the original languages of all the biblical texts and translate them, word for word, to english as closely as possible. As far as I have been able to tell, with out knowing greek, hebrew, latin, aramaic, etc. that this translation IS the closest English translation. The group who did it, pulled from all denominations and required only very intimate knowledge of the bible and biblical history. To my knowledge, it is the version translated with the least amount of prejudice.
As you probably know, that I am Catholic. The official translation that is used for all of America is the NAB (New American Bible). Now the church does not frown upon other translations save for a few, KJ and the Watch Tower translations are the stand outs, because they considered heavily errored in translation. I am not criticizing, just repeating. My point is simply that the version I use is not an official Catholic sanctioned version, but I do consider it the best. The reason why is that every time I have heard somebody refer to the original language on phrases or words from the original languages, the only Biblical translation that I have seen that has passed the original language test in every instance is the ESV. So I invite you to check it out, www.esvonline.com… I really think you’ll like it. You have to buy a Bible to get full access, but you can access the Bible itself with out pay.
I hope you fine it useful as a tool…[/quote]
I will check it out. Throughout our literature, there are references from many different Bibles, because there are so many english words and sometimes another translation makes it easier to grasp the particular point. I have no doubts that this one has been quoted as well.
[quote]
I have to give you this. You feel that they are different in person. Saying you and me are of the same essence (human) but different people, that would be correct. Now, does that somehow mean that we are the same people? Not at all. Let’s say one of us was the president of a company and one was an employee. They both are of the same essence (they are both people) but surely you would agree that they are different in rank (just as Jesus and Jehovah are) and one would be subservient to the other. This is a key point. You mentioned that there is only one God and One mediator. This means that the mediator is not the God?[/quote]
I think you kinda answered what I believe. Me and you are not the same PERSON (who we are), but we are the same BEING (what we are). What ever God is, meaning whatever power he has and what he is made up of, there is only one in the universe. How many persons share that essence? Three. Your example of the president of a company and an employee is rather good in describing what I believe. There is a mutual submission within the Trinity. The Son (Jesus) submits to the Father, but the Son still has just as much power and authority over creation as the Father does. The only thing I don’t know is if that submission has been eternal, or only when Christ was on earth.
The mediator can be God. I think you have a hard time understanding this because you’re a unitarian, thinking God is one INDIVIDUAL, when he is not. A better illustration would be, take for example, me, you and…lets bring Tiribulus in this too. So me, you and Tirib are the last and only humans in the universe after a cataclysmic event. We managed to survive because we were debating the Trinity in an underground bomb shelter. Anyways, besides us, the only other organisms to survive, though unlikely, are dogs. So how many types of humans exist? One of course. There is only ONE species of humans. But how many people share this humanity? Us three. We may develop a system where we decide who’s the leader, but neither of us is more powerful, or any more or less human than the other. The mediator would be like one of us becoming a dog to reconcile dogs to man, that is, if dogs could sin.
A silly example, but it should drive home the point of the trinitarian belief of one being of God being shared among three persons.
[quote]
You also mentioned that no created being of God can say that he is the way and the truth and the life? Why do you say that? Because 1 Cor 1:15 shows that Jesus was created by Jehovah. It is very straight-forward in that scripture. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
There is no mincing of words. Jesus was the firstborn of all creation.[/quote]
I addressed this before.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the word “firstborn” here to mean “first created” because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created thing. But that hasn’t stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for “first created” and it was in use at the time of Paul’s writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for “firstborn” is proto with tikto which would give us “firstborn” and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for “first created” would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.
Second, the biblical use of the word “firstborn” is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean “pre-eminence.” In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, “I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him…I also shall make him My first-born” (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:
* Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
* Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."
Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah’s Witnesses say it means here. “Firstborn” can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah’s Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.
That doesn’t really clear anything up. I don’t know if you looked at the first part of the verse, but it says “Who, being in very nature God…”. How does one get around that part. If you take a look at the whole verse in context, its saying that Jesus, though he was God, did not grasp or hold onto that power. He emptied himself of it (by will) and took on the form of a bond servant (a human). At this point, when he gave up his power (not that he didn’t have it, just that he agreed not to use it), that is when he had to rely on God the Father and Holy Spirit for power, knowledge and guidance.[/quote]
[quote]
With regard to Michael, I will get to that next, once we sort out this first issue.[/quote]
Damn straight
Oh and I separated your texts from mine quite a distance, mainly because the quote function hasen’t been working lately. Either that or I just don’t know how to quote
I promised Michael and I will deliver. I just need a little bit. Rather busy right now. However, for phil 2:6: Many many many translations say “in the form of God.” (check bible.cc) So don’t get hung up on the wording of that one verse. You put a lot of time on that one little point (relatively speaking) and I don’t want you to think that is an end all be all to the point.
Secondly, you failed to address only-begotten. And the first born part, you failed to address where it says "firstborn OF creation. I know firstborn can have many meanings and doesn’t have to apply to birth, but here it does apply to it. First, looking at the second half of the verse, showing that it was firstborn of creation. Second, the only-begotten verse shows very clearly what firstborn must have been talked about.
…and your explanation that Jesus didn’t “hold on to that power”. Well, that is why I gave you the Greek word. That is not the meaning. The greek work has nothing to do with holding on to something. It means take something; pillage or snatch. Nothing about holding on.
and mediator does mean someone else; a mediator can’t be part of the negotiation by definition (at least the definitions i looked up)
Sorry, those were some quick points. By end of day I will have Archangel.
OK, I have like 20 free minutes so let me get this together for you as promised Forbes.
Michael the Archangel.
First, just as I wrote above, any time archangel is mentioned in the Bible, it is mentioned in the singular, never in the plural. In fact, the name “archangel” means the chief angel, so it would seem likely that there was only one.
That being said, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.”
Notice in that verse that the Lord (Jesus) came down “with the voice of the archangel”. That would suggest that Jesus is, in fact, the archangel.
Also, notice Revelation. Revelation 12:7 says “And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.”
So, from here we can at least see that Michael is a leader of faithful angels. Now, let’s look at a few other scriptures that mention someone with their angels.
2 Thess 1:7 “and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.”
Matt 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.”
Matt 24:30,31 “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”
So, here the Bible speaks of both Michael with “his angels” and Jesus with “his angels”. Since nowhere in the Bible does it mention 2 armies of faithful angels, one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus, it seems logical to conclude that Micheal is none other than Jesus in his heavenly role.
Now if you are wondering why Jesus would have multiple names, you don’t have to look any further than the examples of Jacob (known also as Israel), Peter (known also as Simon), and Abram (know also as Abraham) to see that there are others that are known by more than one name.
I don’t understand. Something seems to have come through wrong.[/quote]
Sorry, I can type Hebrew, but obviously T-Nation doesn’t like teh hebrew.
[/quote]
Ah, gotcha. Now, I would like to point out a correction. Yehosua/Yeshua does not mean God Our Savior. It means Yahweh or YHWH is Savior/Salvation.[/quote]
No, it means both “Salvation” and the “Lord who is salvation.”
I don’t understand. Something seems to have come through wrong.[/quote]
Sorry, I can type Hebrew, but obviously T-Nation doesn’t like teh hebrew.
[/quote]
Ah, gotcha. Now, I would like to point out a correction. Yehosua/Yeshua does not mean God Our Savior. It means Yahweh or YHWH is Savior/Salvation.[/quote]
No, it means both “Salvation” and the “Lord who is salvation.”[/quote]
I don’t understand. Something seems to have come through wrong.[/quote]
Sorry, I can type Hebrew, but obviously T-Nation doesn’t like teh hebrew.
[/quote]
Ah, gotcha. Now, I would like to point out a correction. Yehosua/Yeshua does not mean God Our Savior. It means Yahweh or YHWH is Savior/Salvation.[/quote]
No, it means both “Salvation” and the “Lord who is salvation.”[/quote]
What part are you disagreeing with me on?[/quote]
That is doesn’t mean Yahweh is Savior. Jewish people named their sons Yeshua, because everyone wanted their son to be the Messiah. Jewbacca can either correct me on this if he wants, or support me.
However Yahweh means, literally “Lord who is salvation.”
I don’t understand. Something seems to have come through wrong.[/quote]
Sorry, I can type Hebrew, but obviously T-Nation doesn’t like teh hebrew.
[/quote]
Ah, gotcha. Now, I would like to point out a correction. Yehosua/Yeshua does not mean God Our Savior. It means Yahweh or YHWH is Savior/Salvation.[/quote]
No, it means both “Salvation” and the “Lord who is salvation.”[/quote]
What part are you disagreeing with me on?[/quote]
That is doesn’t mean Yahweh is Savior. Jewish people named their sons Yeshua, because everyone wanted their son to be the Messiah. Jewbacca can either correct me on this if he wants, or support me.
However Yahweh means, literally “Lord who is salvation.”[/quote]
You are incorrect.
For those following along:
Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH means “he causes to become” (a modified version of the verb-to become-). It can also mean “the existing one” as was found here:
Jesus, Yeshua means “Jehovah is Salvation” as are found both here:
I have yet to see a name for the Holy Spirit. So, again, Father=Jehovah; Son=Jesus; Holy Spirit=no name. Really brings into question whether or not the holy spirit is a person. Why would the other two “godheads” have a name but the holy spirit not?
This is in HARMONY with the idea that Jehovah is the ONE TRUE GOD and that Jesus is not. Jesus’ name gives honor and respect to HIS God, Jehovah. The two are not of the same being, they are not equal.
If anyone can disprove this, feel free. (with real sources, not mere explanation)
Orinally Brother Chris was explaining (with no proof, scriptural or otherwise) that the Godhead was called Jehovah, and that the father didn’t have a name. I questioned this strongly and now he is of the opinion that the father does indeed have a name. And that name is what I have been saying it was, Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH.
Now, because Jesus says that the Father’s name should be hallowed (Mt 6:9), the name that we should sanctifying is indeed Jehovah. Jehovah is the name that should be receiving our praise.
Which is one reason why we are called Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his Kingdom there will be no end.â?? (Luke 1:31-33)
In the divine plan of salvation, see, no detail is left to chance. Even the child’s name is chosen, pre-ordained by God. And this is where this already miraculous story gets even more interesting.
For a moment, let me play the Nicholas Cage character from the movie National Treasure and explore the name that Gabriel commanded Our Lady to give her son. Indulge me a little, because unlike Cage’s know-it-all character, I’m no scholar of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin. I’m just a guy who stumbled onto something that you may find interesting. You don’t have to believe it."
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his Kingdom there will be no end.â?? (Luke 1:31-33)
In the divine plan of salvation, see, no detail is left to chance. Even the childâ??s name is chosen, pre-ordained by God. And this is where this already miraculous story gets even more interesting.
For a moment, let me play the Nicholas Cage character from the movie National Treasure and explore the name that Gabriel commanded Our Lady to give her son. Indulge me a little, because unlike Cageâ??s know-it-all character, Iâ??m no scholar of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin. Iâ??m just a guy who stumbled onto something that you may find interesting. You donâ??t have to believe it.
First, though you do need to know a little detail about the name of God. I came across this back in the summer of 2008 when I was reading Pope Benedict XVIâ??s book Jesus of Nazareth.
There, the Holy Father mentions one of the forms of Godâ??s name as the unpronounceable YHWH. Some scholars say this should be YHVH, but you may also know it by Yahweh instead. It turns out (and there is some debate about this too) that Yahweh is simply an attempt to pronounce the unpronounceable YHWH, see? Slap a few vowels in there and we can speak the ineffable name.
But hold fast, because that isnâ??t what was intended. Seriously. Now, YHWH in Hebrew looks like this: �?�?�?�?. These four letters are also called the tetragrammaton. From the little research Iâ??ve done (see links below) I found that a shortened version of the Name is used in some places in the Old Testament as well. As such, it still cannot be pronounced, but it was spelled like this: �?�?�?.
Now, can you please show me what scriptures the word Shekinah comes up in? I have been looking for scriptures so that I can get the Greek or Hebrew rendering, but I haven’t been able to find that word in the Bible.
"Objection is made that the word ‘Shekinah,’ is not found in the scripture in its noun form and that it describes a concept that is not scriptural. It is said that the word is coined by Post-biblical Rabbinic scholars. While it is admitted that the Rabbinic concept of God being a hovering non-personal force is an unacceptable extension of meaning, the concept of a physical manifestation of God’s localized dwelling is none-the-less scriptural. We have chosen to use the word ‘Shekinah,’ (shknh) , to name this ‘presence’ since this meaning is in general distribution among many Christians, albeit ignorant of the origin of the word.
The word was coined from verbal cognates in the Bible which describe the ‘presence’ of God in a locality. The verbal cognates are copiously used to describe the ‘Shekinah’ appearances. The word ‘Shekinah,’ itself is not in the biblical text but the concept, as I have defined it, clearly is."
“SHEKINAH’ is found first in the Chaldee Targums, some dated before the time of Jesus, where it is used by the Jewish writers to express what they understood to be the very presence of God, God Himself dwelling in the cloud of glory. These ‘Targums’ are paraphrases of parts of the O.T. written in the Chaldee language. They are not included in the inspired O.T. canon however and in fact are mixed with much error and could quite possibly be the very works condemned by Jesus in Mark 7:6-9. They do have some value in that they give us a record of how the ancient Jews used this word ‘Shekinah’. Take for an example Psalm 74:2, in the King James Version: ‘This Mount Zion, wherein Thou hast dwelt,’ is rendered in the Targum ‘This Mount Zion, wherein Thou hast made Thy Shekinah to dwell.’ Another interesting practice was to translate the O.T. word LORD with ‘The Word of The Lord’. The KJV at Num 10:35,36 says And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee. And when it rested, he said, Return, O LORD, unto the many thousands of Israel. This latter part becomes in the Targum 'Return now, O Word of the LORD, to Thy people Israel, make the glory of Thy Shekinah to dwell among them, and have mercy on the thousands of Israel.”
And from your own, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
“In Revelation 21:22, the phrase ‘glory of God’ in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is rendered ‘God’s SH’KHINAH’ in the Jewish New Testament – notice!
'I saw no temple in the city, for ADONAI [YEHOVAH], God of heaven’s armies, is its Temple, as is the Lamb [Christ]. The city has no need for the sun or the moon to shine on it, because GOD’S SH’KHINAH gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.”
