sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The bishops in the Anglican Church were likewise Apostles.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Scott C.
Just one guy
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in one God, Jehovah. There is no Trinity or Godhead. Jesus is Jehovah's only begotten Son and existed in eternity before birth. He's our Savior. But he is not God, not a God. (Jehovah's Witnesses can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is an entirely separate being from God the Father. Jesus lived with the Father in eternity before he was born on earth. He is the only begotten of the Father. But, we believe that Jesus has God status. He has a unity of purpose and with the Father, so perfect that we can think of the Father and Son as being "one", at least metaphorically, though not literally as personages. Jesus and the Father are separate personages, separate beings, separate souls. They with the Holy Ghost form what we refer to as the Godhead. The Godhead consists of three separate personages, who are completely united in their perfection and will. Each can be referred to as God, either individually or collectively. One only does what the other would do. They work together in perfect divine unity and harmony. That concept is neither the traditional Christian Trinity nor the Jehovah's Witness concept. Followers of each of these faith traditions see their view as supported by the Bible and therefore the most correct Christian view.
Last edited:
What restrictions were there on marriages among the Israelites?,,,,that you consider "overly controlled"? Who controlled it? And why?
Arranged marriages??? nope.
Pressure marriages??? nope.
"Marry only JW's? Yep....as this is a command from scripture....
"A wife is bound as long as her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married to whomever she wants, only in the Lord."
The many things that JW's get accused of are often figments of people's imaginations. Just ask us and we will tell you the truth about ourselves as we have nothing to hide.
Those who join our ranks are never forced into marriages, as the scripture says...."she is free to be married to whomever she wants, only in the Lord".
If you are going to post stuff about us at least make it accurate.
cataway
Well-Known Member
in what way?
I like it that Christianity is diverse. However its a real problem when one group declares itself to be THE way within Christendom and condemns all other groups. In turn many of these groups within Christendom condemned by the JWs retaliate and condemn the JWs. Of course its happened with many other Christian groups throughout history as well. Regardless, I like Christianity and Christians too including the JWs. There is a lot of truth in what Jesus taught and that which is recorded in the New Testament.
How many thrones are found at Revelation 3:21 _________
Hebrews 1:6 in the Greek has the word for obeisance which is a reverential bowing down and Not necessarily worship.
The same 'Greek' word is used at Matthew 14:33 for obeisance.
Jesus instructed as to who to worship at John 4:23-24.
Yes Jesus is the 'Word" meaning God's spokesman. Jesus was speaking for his Father.
Any thoughts about Jesus' Father being greater than all ( everyone ) according to John 10:29 ____________
Who is greater according to Jesus at John 14:28 __________
Jesus always told the truth and at John 10:36 he answers that he is the Son of God.
So, it is true what John wrote at John 6:46 that No man as has seen the Father.
This is in harmony with what John wrote at John 1:18 that No man has seen God...... people saw Jesus.
At 1 John 4:12 John restates what he wrote in his gospel account.
This is in harmony with Exodus 33:20.
Psalms 90:2 informs us that God is Un-created being from everlasting.
So, only God was ' before' the beginning.
Whereas Jesus as "IN" the beginning but Not ' before ' the beginning as his God was ' before ' the beginning.
This is why John could write at Revelation 3:14 that pre-human Jesus was the beginning of the creation by God.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.
Heavenly Jesus did Not appear in front of himself according to Hebrews 9:24.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In that they are in the Apostolic Succession.
Thank you for your ^ above ^ informative post.
I was Not aware that the LDS think of God's spirit as a personage.
Years ago the old KJV word 'ghost' was changed to spirit because God's spirit is Not an apparition as the word ghost suggests - Psalms 104:30.
Also, God's spirit I don't think can be a personage because God's spirit is a neuter "IT" as found at Numbers 11:17,25; Romans 8:16,26.
Even in English we speak of a car or a ship as a 'she' although it remains a neuter it.
Newer versions took the liberty to change "IT" and "ITSELF" to him and himself to try to make a person or personage out of a neuter.
That is a fairly correct statement. We may disagree on the part where Jesus is described as a "god" since John 1:1 and John 1:18 clearly define him as such....but having said that we have to go back to the Greek word "theos" (god) to understand what is mean by that description.
It is a term in Greek that describes a "Mighty One". Both Jehovah and Jesus fit that description but only one of them is the "Almighty" God Jehovah. The Greek language had no word for the singular God of the Jews because the Jews had stopped using his name in their speech. So to identify him in the Greek text, they used the definite article "ho" (the). So Jesus is not a god according to our definition in English, but he was a "mighty one" in the Greek definition.
Yes we agree to the separate beings of Father and son. Jesus himself identified his Father as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3) The holy spirit is almost never mentioned with the Father and son. That we believe would not be possible if it was a separate but equal part of a Godhead.
The problem we would have with some of those aspects is that the three persons in the Godhead are all said to be "God", not persons. That means three gods, which to us is polytheism. So we see no Godhead because there is no Godhead in scripture. I believe it is mentioned in the KJV but it is a mistranslation.
We would agree that the Father, Son and holy spirit work in complete harmony but we do not see the holy spirit as a separate "person" because we see it as the administration of God's power sent to accomplish whatever he wills in a variety of ways.
firedragon
Veteran Member
How does that defer from the athanasian creed?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, in John 1:1, the article "Ho" is not used when it comes to saying "Theos en ho logos". In this matter Deeje I must say your explanation is not sound. Also "Ho Theos" is not used in this verse at all. Its not that it makes a difference but it only says "ton theos".
Not all Interlinears are translated equal.....I am no Greek scholar but in comparing the online Interlinears I certainly see cause for optimism in our assessment of the situation.
From Biblegateway's Mounce Interlinear it says...
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."
Bible Gateway passage: John 1:1 - Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament
I can't see how my explanation is unsound here firedragon...."ho" is mentioned 4 times in this verse and it is translated "the"...plain and simple. This Interlinear is not from JW's. Biblegateway is not a JW source.
The one thing you do notice to completely distract from the fact that it is clearly there with the first "theos" but not the second, is that "ho" is missing in English....omitted. Don't you have to wonder why?
JW's use the Kingdom Interlinear which is also an excellent source.
In ἀρχῇ beginning ἦν was ὁ the λόγος, Word, καὶ and ὁ the λόγος Word ἦν was πρὸς toward τὸν the θεόν, God, καὶ and θεὸς god ἦν was ὁ the λόγος. Word."
Again, the definite article ὁ is seen clearly in the text and indicated by τὸν which is translated as "the" in this Interlinear.
If you look at Biblehub's translation, (which I cannot get to copy and paste) you will see a dash where the word τὸν is used. Why not translate it to English? This is clearly trinitarian bias.
John 1 Interlinear Bible
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, with all due respect, its not en arche "eimi". This is truly surprising for me.
Its en arche en hologos, not en arche eimi ho logos.
Ho is mentioned four times or 10 times doesn't matter. Ho is always mentioned with any definite article in the masculine.
"En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon. Kai, theos en ho logos".
Of course the translations are trinitarian bias. Your translation is sound. But your explanation is wrong.
The question is "there is no definitive article in the phrase "Kai theos en ho logos". Thats giving an attribute, not calling him God.
This is form NLT - "
In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
Thats wrong translation. Sorry but that's bias too.
When you have a word without a definitive article its giving an attribute. Not calling him God. So "and he was God" is wrong. What happened to the word "Logos" in that? where did "He" come from? It is "theos en ho logos", which means "the word was Godly/divine".
Yes Adrian, as one who was once part of Christendom, it isn't until you actually study the Bible for yourself that you see how very far Christendom has strayed from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. I never knew this until the Bible painted a clear picture of why the churches of Christendom are all virtually the same as all other false worship, as far as God is concerned.
"Babylon" is featured quite a bit throughout the Bible as a "type", representative of things to come.....and not in a good way. The Revelation to John tells of a "greater Babylon" which he describes as a "harlot" who commits fornication with the Kings of the earth". She is represented in this time of the end, as one entity....but with many subscribing to her God-dishonoring beliefs....the majority of mankind in fact.
God's command is to: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. 5 For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind. 6 Repay her in the way she treated others, yes, pay her back double for the things she has done; in the cup she has mixed, mix a double portion for her. 7 To the extent that she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury, to that extent give her torment and mourning. For she keeps saying in her heart: ‘I sit as queen, and I am not a widow, and I will never see mourning.’ 8 That is why in one day her plagues will come, death and mourning and famine, and she will be completely burned with fire, because Jehovah God, who judged her, is strong". (Revelation 18:4-8)
"And a strong angel lifted up a stone like a great millstone and hurled it into the sea, saying: “Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again". (Revelation 18:21)
Reading on from verse 8, the death of the "harlot" is mourned by two of the great controlling elements in the world.....politics and commerce....but she herself is the third.....false religion. All those who teach doctrines that originated in ancient Babylon are part of "Babylon the great." These include the worship of multiplicities of gods, belief in immortal souls that live on after death, hellfire for the wicked, adoration of images, the veneration of saints and mother goddesses, participation in bloodshed.....and a host of other beliefs and practices that can be traced back to Babylon....Christendom adopted all of those, but they are not from the Bible.
This is the devil's world empire through which he controls everything, according to our understanding of the scriptures. But it says that the destruction of the harlot is God's doing and that he uses the political elements to bring her down. They are even puzzled as to why they did this, since they benefited from their liaisons with her. But the destruction of "Babylon the great" is just the start...God is not finished yet. The whole of satan's world will be brought down through the greatest tribulation this world has ever seen. (Matthew 24:21)That is how we see the future.
We are living in unprecedented times....you think it is bad now....wait and see what's coming (Matthew 24:22)....this is why we preach....its a warning to all who will listen. (Matthew 24:14)
Our message is not forced, but it must be delivered, according to what we believe.
I hope you understand that the NLT is not the NWT....?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT)
So yes, this is why we refer to The Logos (Jesus) as "a god".....he retains his divine status without being the Almighty.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh sorry. I made a mistake, I looked at the wrong translation.
Nevertheless, I dont agree at all with the NWT translation although it is indeed a more reasonable translation than other Bibles be it probably any. The reason I already explained which I hope you do get.
Leaving that aside for a moment, you said John 1:1 says "En arche eimi ho logos" and the interlinear you gave "biblegateway" also says the same thing.
Which manuscript or text did they take this from? If you look at any of the old texts like lets say Sinaiticus, its always "en ho logos", not "eimi ho logos".
Why is that? Can you explain?
Is there a translation that actually meets with your approval?
You seem to be concentrating on the first part of John 1:1 when the trinitarian argument concentrates on the ending....? Is there a reason why you are highlighting this point?
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos"
So what part of "in the beginning was the Word" are you at odds with here?
In my studies I asked "in the beginning of what"? Since God is eternal, the Logos had a beginning? Paul seemed to think so and so did John (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14)
If he was "with" God, how could he be God?
You'll have to look that up yourself....I have no idea, nor does it bother me what manuscript it is taken from. Scholars will always disagree on which was the right one...
I just want to understand your point....?
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Indeed, I am not.
I just assumed that you were talking about religion. But certainly, one doesn't have to be part of a religion to be estranged. Culture and ideology plays a big part in that too.
Never have and never will.
Nope. I mentioned the books title but didn't quote anything out of it. I just asked you if you read the book first but you didn't know what about it I wanted to discuss. So you went in a direction that I never claimed. You cannot smash an idea that was never presented in the first place.
South Africa. We are pretty chill though.
Scientology isn't a country, although I am sure they wish to be with their Sea Org. And yes, that was my point.
I am glad she was in your life then.I wish all of my blood relatives a happy and contented life.
My wife has provided all of that for me, so no great sorrows for me.
But thank you for that kind thought.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Of course. Edgar Goodspeeds translation.
Not really. I did not focus on the beginning or the end but the whole verse and I quoted the whole verse. I am not propagating trinitarianism, and of course everything other than God had a beginning. So its not relevant to me.
I did look it up by myself. But it seems you dont care so that ends that conversation.
To you, I say that there are no manuscripts or any bible whatsoever that says "En Arche eimi ho logos". And scholars dont disagree on this so you just made a false statement because you had committed this text but its wrong.
Cheers.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
As for No1 I wouldn't call them a charity as contributing to charities isn't promoted. And they are transparent depending on what you want to investigate about them. Regarding number 8, this is inconsistent in their teachings. Many times it is said that two witnesses are needed, but in some cases apparently circumstantial evidence is good enough. It pretty much comes to pick and choose.
1) If one isn't in good standing they might not be allowed to preach with the groups, give answers in meetings, might be prevented from dating someone (personal choice), have positions etc. 2) That is in God and Jesus hands as it is believed only they can read the heart. But most will be resurrected and taught before Satan is released the second time.
[QUOTE="Terry Sampson, post: 6749221, member: 66320"]Yo', [USER=62321](1) My memory and understanding is that JWs alive during Armageddon are going to have as hard a time as non-JWs, i.e. JWs don't believe in a "Rapture" event, in which they will be taken away before the Great Battle.[/QUOTE] IMO they do believe that the anointed alive on earth will get raptured. It is a matter of semantics. Officially they will be taken away during the Great Tribulation sometime. During the Great Tribulation the JW's will have a hard time. During Armageddon God's foes will be slain.
[QUOTE="Terry Sampson, post: 6749221, member: 66320"]Yo', [USER=62321]((2) And if I've got it close to accurate, as for post-mortal consequences of being a non-JW or a JW who is not in good standing, there is no Hell-fire and brimstone punishment, ... only annihilation of the person's memory and no chance of that memory being uploaded to a spirit body.[/QUOTE] Good standing though is a tricky term. It is a term applied to those who are inside the group who don't stick to organisation rules and people see as not that spiritual, mainly decided by the elders. Non-JWs aren't called "not in good standing". But most people will be resurrected to be taught again and then after that if they side with Satan then they will be permanently destroyed and not live on earth.[/user][/user]