Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."

[Bright Raven]

Eight minutes IS alot of time when there is truth to be spread and I am pausing to listen to garbage.

Of course I have the reference Bible. What is the scripture?

Go to 1 Peter 3:15. The word Lord which refers to Jesus is marked with an asterisk if you have the reference bible. Go to the reference and tell me what it says about the word Lord

 

[KingdomRose]

Go to 1 Peter 3:15. The word Lord which refers to Jesus is marked with an asterisk if you have the reference bible. Go to the reference and tell me what it says about the word Lord

I don't see that as the New World Translation setting forth a fact that "Christ as Lord" means "Jehovah God." No. I look at that as the NWT committee merely telling us what other manuscripts say, and not what the NWT committee deems correct.

 

[steko]

I don't see that as the New World Translation setting forth a fact that "Christ as Lord" means "Jehovah God." No. I look at that as the NWT committee merely telling us what other manuscripts say, and not what the NWT committee deems correct.

Luk 10:22 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."


1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God,
1Co 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

 

[Bright Raven]

I don't see that as the New World Translation setting forth a fact that "Christ as Lord" means "Jehovah God." No. I look at that as the NWT committee merely telling us what other manuscripts say, and not what the NWT committee deems correct.

It is obvious that you do not have a reference edition to the bible which you said you had and you will remain lost until you get one and become enlightened to the truth.

 

[drbrumley]

I don't see that as the New World Translation setting forth a fact that "Christ as Lord" means "Jehovah God."

Of course!!!!!

 

[freelight]

Why thank your pagan cookies!

Why thank your pagan cookies!

what makes this different from any pegan religion?

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

You can thank ancient pagan religions for most of the common universal truth themes, types, shadows and archetypes carried over and incorporated within the Judeo-christian religion,....so not sure what you're going for here, when kingdom Rose is merely recognizing that Jehovah God (The Father) and His Son (The Messiah) are 2 seperate distinct personages,....even the Orthodox Trinity Creeds claim that The Father and the Son are 2 seperate, distinct persons. Lets make we got that down.

Therefore, I dont see how Orthdox Trinitarianism, (which actually just won the church-state sanction of the rulers of that day so they ended up with the 'belief' that ultimately prevailed. Arianism did have the upper hand prevailing for a season at least 2-3 times during the big Arian Controvery years, so I dont see Trinitarianism as winning because it was necesssarily TRUE, it got state sanction. See the trend? History is sometimes defined and written by the victors.) has a monopoly on truth here, since their own concept of 'God' and 'Trinity' are a curious convolution of personalities. Try on polytheism for size, but just shake and bake it, sprinkle it with greek metaphysics, infuse just enough paganism into the sauce to get a proper seasoning, throw in some blood-sacrifices, but keep the monotheism of Judaism to stay true to the ground you're building from,... and whala!....what have you? - you're getting warm......

:surf:

 

[freelight]

Unitarian or Trinitarian,.....who cares?

Unitarian or Trinitarian,.....who cares?

Your Bible does. Did you even watch the video?

I watched the video,...and the claim of its producers only allude by references and deduce that because the JW reference guide/index indicated the word 'lord' can be used for Jesus or Jehovah,..that this somehow indicates Jesus is Jehovah in the text. Well,...since JW's are thorougly convinced that Jesus is NOT Jehovah, there placing such references in their own works, does NOT indicate they belief that, and there are ample enough scriptures that PROVE Jesus is NOT Jehovah to go around, to not make this really even a concern,...except if you want to split hairs over a few passages where the word 'lord' could refer to Jesus or Jehovah. This is just trinitarian apologetists trying to subdue the J-dubs at their own game - They wont budge.

We might also note, that the Trinitarian claim and rally-cry proclaiming Jesus as Jehovah, confuses matters somewhat, because Jehovah is usually depicted as being 'The Father', and the trinitarian formula strongly emphasizes that the Son is NOT the Father, and the Father is NOT the Son,...so we have a curious combination going on,....considering what 'God-personality' was operating and speaking in the OT times, was it the Father or the Son, or both? - again...we could dive deeper here, but just saying....from a Jewish perspective.....Jehovah is the Eternal Father of all that exists,....this includes the Messiah, His Son. In this view, from the purely Jewish tradition and teaching on the Messiah,...Jesus could NOT be Jehovah...ever! God ever remains the head, and Father-God of the MAN he anoints, as Messiah, the son of David.

A 'Son' is ever the progeny/offspring of a Progenitor/Father,....and the two can never be the same person, although one can assume they are one in spirit or agreement. Besides many other comparitives and correlaries,....a Trintarian view does not trump or necessarily offer a more logical or consistent Christology, than a Unitarian one. Its just some prefer and find one view more rational than any others, but one's point of view is always subject to change

 

[randomvim]

I watched the video,...and the claim of its producers only allude by references and deduce that because the JW reference guide/index indicated the word 'lord' can be used for Jesus or Jehovah,..that this somehow indicates Jesus is Jehovah in the text. Well,...since JW's are thorougly convinced that Jesus is NOT Jehovah, there placing such references in their own works, does NOT indicate they belief that, and there are ample enough scriptures that PROVE Jesus is NOT Jehovah to go around, to not make this really even a concern,...except if you want to split hairs over a few passages where the word 'lord' could refer to Jesus or Jehovah. This is just trinitarian apologetists trying to subdue the J-dubs at their own game - They wont budge.

We might also note, that the Trinitarian claim and rally-cry proclaiming Jesus as Jehovah, confuses matters somewhat, because Jehovah is usually depicted as being 'The Father', and the trinitarian formula strongly emphasizes that the Son is NOT the Father, and the Father is NOT the Son,...so we have a curious combination going on,....considering what 'God-personality' was operating and speaking in the OT times, was it the Father or the Son, or both? - again...we could dive deeper here, but just saying....from a Jewish perspective.....Jehovah is the Eternal Father of all that exists,....this includes the Messiah, His Son. In this view, from the purely Jewish tradition and teaching on the Messiah,...Jesus could NOT be Jehovah...ever! God ever remains the head, and Father-God of the MAN he anoints, as Messiah, the son of David.

A 'Son' is ever the progeny/offspring of a Progenitor/Father,....and the two can never be the same person, although one can assume they are one in spirit or agreement. Besides many other comparitives and correlaries,....a Trintarian view does not trump or necessarily offer a more logical or consistent Christology, than a Unitarian one. Its just some prefer and find one view more rational than any others, but one's point of view is always subject to change

May you present works cited on Jewish tradition?

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[randomvim]

You can thank ancient pagan religions for most of the common universal truth themes, types, shadows and archetypes carried over and incorporated within the Judeo-christian religion,....so not sure what you're going for here, when kingdom Rose is merely recognizing that Jehovah God (The Father) and His Son (The Messiah) are 2 seperate distinct personages,....even the Orthodox Trinity Creeds claim that The Father and the Son are 2 seperate, distinct persons. Lets make we got that down.

Therefore, I dont see how Orthdox Trinitarianism, (which actually just won the church-state sanction of the rulers of that day so they ended up with the 'belief' that ultimately prevailed. Arianism did have the upper hand prevailing for a season at least 2-3 times during the big Arian Controvery years, so I dont see Trinitarianism as winning because it was necesssarily TRUE, it got state sanction. See the trend? History is sometimes defined and written by the victors.) has a monopoly on truth here, since their own concept of 'God' and 'Trinity' are a curious convolution of personalities. Try on polytheism for size, but just shake and bake it, sprinkle it with greek metaphysics, infuse just enough paganism into the sauce to get a proper seasoning, throw in some blood-sacrifices, but keep the monotheism of Judaism to stay true to the ground you're building from,... and whala!....what have you? - you're getting warm......

:surf:

1. there is a difference between persons and beings.

2. If Jesus is not God, then what is he?

3. If history is written by those who "won" then that would suggest that from a dispute between trinitarism vs arianism majority and even main leaders supported the theology of the trinity yes?

4. I was asking to what degree that origional statement or statements stood out from other religions or in general pegan traditions.

As for what "carries over" from pegan to Judeo-Christian, I would agree and disagree. the concpect of universal truth is philisophical in nature and transends religious groups.

A=A is either correct or incorrect.
Furthermore, there is a difference between cultural traditions vs pure religious traditions.

 

[randomvim]

The Watchtower does not say that Jesus is Jehovah, and it is quite silly and counterproductive for you to indicate such a thing.

I have posted many posts on this thread to show unequivocally that Jesus is NOT Jehovah. Yet you twist around scriptures that can apply to both Jesus and Jehovah and we are supposed to believe your nonsense?

What Bible do you use?

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[randomvim]

What is pagan about it?

I am asking for how it stands out and away from pegan religions.

What I see are 3 things. if Jesus is not in fact a person of the trinity. then you have:

1. two or three devine gods, not one. Even if the others are not complete gods or equal to "the father" then there are still 3 divine beings making their mark on humanity - thats not monothiesm and not Jewish.

2. Jesus is not God but human with some divinity (like hurcules) or a creature of less divine nature which we can then compare Jesus the Son to God the Father same as we would compare Zues to the Titans.

3. We have three unknown beings that we might not know anything about. why? because Jesus died for our sins after having little to no involvement for or with humanity prior (maybe). and though Jesus gives His life for the father, it can be argued that it is unwilling or from an unjust cause.

Those are three issues I see.

 

[freelight]

May you present works cited on Jewish tradition?

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

I speak from common knowledge and various points of reference. I would then refer you to at least consider whats been shared, and continue researching. Just look at orthodox Judaism and rabbinical teaching for starters on their Messiah. The Messiah is a man of the lineage of David anointed by God. The Messiah is not YHWH. Orthodox Judaism is very different than orthodox Christianity, two seperate distinct relgions, even though Christians have kept the OT in their 'Bible' by attaching their own NT to it. Orthodox Jews reject the NT.

 

[freelight]

having fun......

having fun......

1. there is a difference between persons and beings.

And a fine line between splitting hairs too

2. If Jesus is not God, then what is he?

Try the 'Son' of 'God' for starters. A 'son' of someone is NOT that same person as his Father.

3. If history is written by those who "won" then that would suggest that from a dispute between trinitarism vs arianism majority and even main leaders supported the theology of the trinity yes?

Popularity does not necessarily equate to truth. Arianism did have seasons of being supported by the rulers and prevailed in the kingdom, until other rulers arose who sided with the Trinitarian believers. I've shared elsewhere, that practicing true religion as a disciple of Jesus goes beyond Unitarianism or Trinitarianism, as one can be a follower of the Lord Jesus from either camp, or have a different Christology altogether. God looks at the heart, and the pure in heart shall see Him.

4. I was asking to what degree that origional statement or statements stood out from other religions or in general pegan traditions.

All colours blend into one. One Ocean, many rivers

As for what "carries over" from pegan to Judeo-Christian, I would agree and disagree. the concpect of universal truth is philisophical in nature and transends religious groups.

I threw that out there to see if I'd get any bites. Yes,...I approach much from a philosophical point of view, theosophical in fact and nature. God is One,...words are many.

A=A is either correct or incorrect.

That depends on your language, terminology, meanings and values - how those are measured, compared and correlated.

Furthermore, there is a difference between cultural traditions vs pure religious traditions.

Sure,...see my first response

I have more serious commentaries here in this thread and many others,...I'm in a rather festive mood at the moment,....so grin and bear it

 

[randomvim]

How the Trinity is explained:
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

[Jesus projects this after ressurection. ] ...He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach all nations, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt., xxviii, 19). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and ... and", is evidence that we have here a Third Person coordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase "in the name"*(eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature"

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[randomvim]

And a fine line between splitting hairs too



Try the 'Son' of 'God' for starters. A 'son' of someone is NOT that same person as his Father.



Popularity does not necessarily equate to truth. Arianism did have seasons of being supported by the rulers and prevailed in the kingdom, until other rulers arose who sided with the Trinitarian believers. I've shared elsewhere, that practicing true religion as a disciple of Jesus goes beyond Unitarianism or Trinitarianism, as one can be a follower of the Lord Jesus from either camp, or have a different Christology altogether. God looks at the heart, and the pure in heart shall see Him.



All colours blend into one. One Ocean, many rivers



I threw that out there to see if I'd get any bites. Yes,...I approach much from a philosophical point of view, theosophical in fact and nature. God is One,...words are many.



That depends on your language, terminology, meanings and values - how those are measured, compared and correlated.



Sure,...see my first response

I have more serious commentaries here in this thread and many others,...I'm in a rather festive mood at the moment,....so grin and bear it

1. A fine line between correct or incorrect context amd definition too.
http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed
distinct is not the same as seperate. 3 distinct persons is not the same as 3 seperate individual persons.

2. I asked what Jesus is. Not who. God the Father is a Divine being, alpha and omega. "I Am". If Jesus is not the same, then what is he?

3.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[KingdomRose]

Luk 10:22 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."


1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God,
1Co 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

What is your point? Even Satan can quote scriptures.

 

[KingdomRose]

It is obvious that you do not have a reference edition to the bible which you said you had and you will remain lost until you get one and become enlightened to the truth.

Why would I lie over such a silly thing? I have the Reference Bible from years ago (revised 1984) and I have the Reference Bible from 2013. How is it that I "obviously" don't have the Reference edition?

I looked at the footnotes and could see that there were various manuscripts represented, some of which offered the translation of "Jehovah" or "Lord God" where the NWT translated the same phrase with "Lord" instead. The NWT was not saying that the other versions were correct; they were just honest enough to present what some other manuscripts had said.

This is the footnote: 15* "The Christ as Lord," ABC; TR, "the Lord God"; J7,8,11-14,16,17,24, "Jehovah God."

 

[KingdomRose]

What Bible do you use?

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

I usually quote from the New American Standard Bible on these sites. I often use many other versions. I have quite a collection in my library.

 

[Bright Raven]

Why would I lie over such a silly thing? I have the Reference Bible from years ago (revised 1984) and I have the Reference Bible from 2013. How is it that I "obviously" don't have the Reference edition?

I looked at the footnotes and could see that there were various manuscripts represented, some of which offered the translation of "Jehovah" or "Lord God" where the NWT translated the same phrase with "Lord" instead. The NWT was not saying that the other versions were correct; they were just honest enough to present what some other manuscripts had said.

This is the footnote: 15* "The Christ as Lord," ABC; TR, "the Lord God"; J7,8,11-14,16,17,24, "Jehovah God."

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[KingdomRose]

I am asking for how it stands out and away from pegan religions.

What I see are 3 things. if Jesus is not in fact a person of the trinity. then you have:

1. two or three devine gods, not one. Even if the others are not complete gods or equal to "the father" then there are still 3 divine beings making their mark on humanity - thats not monothiesm and not Jewish.

2. Jesus is not God but human with some divinity (like hurcules) or a creature of less divine nature which we can then compare Jesus the Son to God the Father same as we would compare Zues to the Titans.

3. We have three unknown beings that we might not know anything about. why? because Jesus died for our sins after having little to no involvement for or with humanity prior (maybe). and though Jesus gives His life for the father, it can be argued that it is unwilling or from an unjust cause.

Those are three issues I see.

First: Jesus is not a person of the trinity.
Secondly: We do not have three divine dieties, or, divinities that are all God Almighty. There is and has always been ONE divinity that is THE only true Diety, and that is Jehovah. Jesus is not and has never been equal to the Father and still has made his mark on humanity, and this does not mean that this situation is polytheistic. In the Jews' own scriptures Jehovah and His Son appear in the texts. (E.g., Psalm 2:2-12; Psalm 110:1-7; Isaiah 11:1-5; Isaiah 61:1,2.) To the Jews this was not polytheistic.

Next, your number 2: Jesus, truly, is not God. He is a creature of less divine nature, indeed. Every person ever created is of lesser nature than Jehovah.

Your number 3: Jesus died for our sins after an extensive history of being involved with humanity. He CREATED humans (Colossians 1:16), with his Father's power and authorization of course, and he afterward stood in as his Father's spokesman to all of the ancients. He was totally involved in everything humans ever did. And Jesus and Jehovah are not "unknown beings." They both are explained in the Bible. It is all there for anyone to see. Why would anyone say that Jesus gave up his life unwillingly? There is nothing in the scriptures to suggest such a thing. Your issues are dissolving before your eyes.