Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Sorry, but Jehovah has always had his Witnesses.(Isaiah 43:10; Hebrews 12:1)
You are conflating a group named something, with actual followers of God.
-
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 JW's claim Jesus was not son of Adam.
- Thread starter LightofTruth
- Start date
You are conflating a group named something, with actual followers of God.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Actually there is a symbolic difference in use of the terms.
Son of Adam simply means that someone is human.
Son of Man, in the context that Jesus uses, is a reference to the Son of Man in Daniel, as he quotes scripture using that context. So when he uses the term Son of Man he is using it in reference to being the messiah in Daniel.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
@LightofTruth, who is not a JW, asked a simple question of JW's regarding Jesus:
@Deeje, a JW, acknowledged and confirmed it:
@Hockeycowboy, a JW, seems to contradict @Deeje's understanding of Christ:
Deeje seems to contradict @LightofTruth and her fellow JW, HockeyCowboy:
URAVIP2ME, another JW, appears to confirm Hockeycowboy's claim but contradicts Deeje's claim:
But just in case this is slightly confusing to everyone another JW, @theQuestion, makes it clear:
Listening to the JW's explanation here is like reading a WT magazine. It can change from one person to the next, from one magazine to another, from one publication to the next. Also, what you find on JW.ORG this year may be completely different from what you found last year, or it may have been completely removed and you find nothing at all.
I can't help but feel that if God had wanted to guide us this way he would have written the 10 commandments on an Etch A Sketch rather than stone tablets.
There's simply no way to know if JW's consider Jesus a "Son of Adam" after reading this.
Honestly @Misty Woods , I would say there has been a lot of imperfect human conceptions promulgated by the Witnesses here due to a "misunderstanding of scripture". @theQuestion is laughing at the thought of Jesus being the Son of Adam while at the same time being the Son of God, @Deeje says there is no genetic linkage to Adam while @URAVIP2ME says there is, HockeyCowboy says there's a biological linkage which to me implies a genetic linkage, URAVIP2ME says increasing revelation is a sign of increasing light, whilst Deeje says it's a sign of "gradualism", and from all this you tell us it's wiser "To believe the clear teachings of our Creator's Inspired Scripture" when nothing clear has been exhibited here.
Here's another, extremely convenient spiritual "truth" according to our JW friends:
Concerning @sealchan and the evolution of the Trinity:
But concerning @sooda and the many false prophesies of the WT:
So it's "gradualism" for Christians but "increased understanding" for Jehovah Witnesses. Can anyone tell me why the Trinity doctrine is "gradualism" since it was developed over time but false dates are a sign of increasing spiritual light?
Lastly regarding @Muffled (not a JW) and whether Jesus could sin:
So once again, after this brief bible study with our JW friends we have no idea whether Jesus was capable of sinning. He had "no need to fight" temptation while at the same time he needed to fight temptation in order not to sin. While I agree with @URAVIP2ME it's confusing.
I would not blame any of our JW friends for this. The publications they rely on are constantly being updated with new "truths" as thegradualisms spiritual light get brighter every day. It just seems some of this has worked its way down into the rank and file where we get one bright comment from one JW, an opposing but brighter comment from another, and then an even brighter comment that contradicts the "brighter" comment and makes the original "bright" comment brightest of all.
I suppose it's up to the reader to decide who is who and which is which.
@Deeje, a JW, acknowledged and confirmed it:
@Hockeycowboy, a JW, seems to contradict @Deeje's understanding of Christ:
Deeje seems to contradict @LightofTruth and her fellow JW, HockeyCowboy:
URAVIP2ME, another JW, appears to confirm Hockeycowboy's claim but contradicts Deeje's claim:
But just in case this is slightly confusing to everyone another JW, @theQuestion, makes it clear:
HMMMM!
Son of Adam...of Son of God...
TOUGH CHOICE!
Listening to the JW's explanation here is like reading a WT magazine. It can change from one person to the next, from one magazine to another, from one publication to the next. Also, what you find on JW.ORG this year may be completely different from what you found last year, or it may have been completely removed and you find nothing at all.
I can't help but feel that if God had wanted to guide us this way he would have written the 10 commandments on an Etch A Sketch rather than stone tablets.
There's simply no way to know if JW's consider Jesus a "Son of Adam" after reading this.
Honestly @Misty Woods , I would say there has been a lot of imperfect human conceptions promulgated by the Witnesses here due to a "misunderstanding of scripture". @theQuestion is laughing at the thought of Jesus being the Son of Adam while at the same time being the Son of God, @Deeje says there is no genetic linkage to Adam while @URAVIP2ME says there is, HockeyCowboy says there's a biological linkage which to me implies a genetic linkage, URAVIP2ME says increasing revelation is a sign of increasing light, whilst Deeje says it's a sign of "gradualism", and from all this you tell us it's wiser "To believe the clear teachings of our Creator's Inspired Scripture" when nothing clear has been exhibited here.
Here's another, extremely convenient spiritual "truth" according to our JW friends:
Concerning @sealchan and the evolution of the Trinity:
But concerning @sooda and the many false prophesies of the WT:
So it's "gradualism" for Christians but "increased understanding" for Jehovah Witnesses. Can anyone tell me why the Trinity doctrine is "gradualism" since it was developed over time but false dates are a sign of increasing spiritual light?
Lastly regarding @Muffled (not a JW) and whether Jesus could sin:
So once again, after this brief bible study with our JW friends we have no idea whether Jesus was capable of sinning. He had "no need to fight" temptation while at the same time he needed to fight temptation in order not to sin. While I agree with @URAVIP2ME it's confusing.
I would not blame any of our JW friends for this. The publications they rely on are constantly being updated with new "truths" as the
I suppose it's up to the reader to decide who is who and which is which.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
Deeje was willing to admit that all sons of Adam have a sinful nature but refused to acknowledge Jesus as being a son of Adam because that would mean Jesus had a sinful nature. The RCC dealt with the problem by admitting Jesus was a son of Adam and then inventing the idea of immaculate conception.
To say Jesus is a son of man is the same as saying he is the son of Adam.
For example:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
The word "man" there is the word Adam. (H120)
The definition of the word:= man, mankind. It is used also to signify a specific man, Adam as a name.
This is very simple but Deeje can't admit she is wrong about anything. it's very sad.
To say Jesus is son of man is to say he comes from the first man. And his genealogy proves it!
Therefore, Jesus was of the same flesh as the rest of man. And if all sons of man have sinful flesh, then so too did Jesus. And that's why the Scripture declares he was tempted in all point as we are. And why he can sympathize with our weaknesses and why he is said to be a partaker of the same flesh and blood as the rest of the children of God.
But sad for Dejee because she thinks herself infallible else she might learn something. Oh, and God forbid if she went against the JW's. she'd be shunned.
I could reply to all of this nonsense but nobody twists a response quite like you do Oeste, so I gave up trying.
Its not really up to the reader to decide.....I will just let Jesus do his job and sort the "wheat from the weeds".
I have been on both sides of this fence, so from personal experience I have already offered my opinion.
Jesus knows those who belong to him.......I trust him.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
How can you say you know Jesus if you fail to recognize him as a son of man(adam H120)?
How can you say you know Jesus if he was of some other unknown nature while he walked this earth as a man?
I know the real Jesus. He can sympathize with me because he shared the same flesh and blood nature I do.
And I can bow down to him because I know he overcame it.
Will you take notice of Paul?
Hebrews 4:15....
"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tested in all respects as we have, but without sin."
Hebrews 7:26...
"For it is fitting for us to have such a high priest who is loyal, innocent, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and exalted above the heavens."
Do you ever read all of scripture...or just the bits that seem to agree with your errors?
You might want to turn that back on yourself....where is your brotherhood? What is sad is that no one agrees with what you believe....you are a church of one....a lone ranger. Do you have any idea how many lone rangers there are in the world, all equally convinced that they are somehow the "special" recipients of spiritual knowledge? If you all agreed with each other, then you might have a case....but you all believe differently, otherwise you might have a brotherhood....but you don't.
Jesus is a son of man.....100% human, who was created by God in a special intervention. Jesus is not a son of Adam genetically because Adam's faulty genes are not in him. He is the "last Adam" because he was the same perfect flesh as the "first Adam", but having disobeyed God, Adam lost his perfection and passed sin down to every other human. (Romans 5:12) God's law was "a life for a life" so an equivalent life was offered for the life that Adam lost for all his children. If you have no understanding of the ransom, you will never understand the necessity for Jesus to be a sinless human being, specially created to offer to God the ransom demanded to cancel Adam's debt.
You need to learn about redemption and what it actually means. Only the one who has the means can pay the price. Only Jesus had the means.
This is your assumption...but it is not what the Bible says. Temptation does not necessarily lead to sin as Jesus so strongly demonstrated. As Paul stated, Jesus was sinless.....how does one get that through to you?
I think of myself as infallible? But you don't? You crack me up. I show you scripture as plain as the nose on your face, but you ignore it and then accuse me of not addressing your questions.....
Whatever....I'm done.
If it floats your boat to believe that...go ahead. It makes no difference to me. You can believe whatever you wish.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
Jesus can sympathize with our weaknesses because he SHARED in them by being a flesh and blood man as all the rest. Who was tempted in all point as we are. But without sin...meaning he committed no sin.
Sin is transgression of the law of God. And sin begins by being tempted and enticed by our OWN desires. When those desires conceive, they give birth to sin. (James 1)
if Jesus could be tempted in all points as we are then he had the same desires that we have. But he overcame those desires and NEVER allowed them to lead to transgress the law of God as Adam did.
Hebrews 7:26...
That verse specifically states that Jesus had been exalted above the heavens when the writer said it. Jesus had already entered into glory and in possession of the spiritual body which came by resurrection from the dead. He no longer had the fleshly mortal nature he shared with us before he rose.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
According to Scripture everyone is tempted by his own desires. So temptation comes from within. However, we also need to realize that people can be tempters. They can excite our own desires in all sorts of ways.
Eve's desire for the fruit was excited by a tempter called the serpent. And Eve then allowed her temptation by her own desire to take the fruit.
The reason Eve desired the fruit was due to the lust of the flesh. Paul says the law is made weak by the flesh and James tells where sin begins.....in our own desires.
To attempt to make Adam and Eve to be of some other nature then the fleshly natural man made of the earth and then have them to have children of a different nature altogether is ridiculous. and the scripture never teaches such a thing as you.
These churches out there are telling us that Adams nature changed after he sinned to a sinful nature. can you believe it?
Listen to that nonsense!
They are saying Adam sinned without a sinful nature.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
I find it incredibly ironic that there is disagreement here amongst the JW's themselves.
@Deeje often claims that just because a person makes a mistake in understanding JW theology, that it is clear that they weren't a true JW and aren't reliable when it comes to explaining what JW's actually believe.
Now, according to her faulty logic, either @Hockeycowboy and @URAVIP2ME or herself are not true JW's and are not knowledgeable about JW theology because at least one of the sides are wrong on this subject.
She likes to use this as a polemic against non JW's or Ex JW's to discredit them, but will she be consistent when it comes to people who are on her side?
Arrogance is a weapon against ones self. If she practiced humility then she would be able to admit when she is wrong.
Oh @Oeste , you probably know better than most, that JW’s are more unified in their teachings than any other religious group. (1 Corinthians 1:10). Yet you say “the JW’s explanation....can change from one person to the next”!
You find one instance, and you make it seem commonplace.
It sounds like someone wanting to cause “contentions among brothers.”
It’s a small issue, the genetic makeup of Jesus. I would think that Jehovah God could accomplish any occurrence He wanted to. But my reasoning on this subject (worth 2 cents), was that we are all descendants of Adam, and yet some of Jehovah’s people, with their imperfections, will survive this System’s end and eventually be made perfect ...Adamic DNA & all.
I must say, you come across as someone so bitter. I’m sorry for whatever’s the cause.
Could it be you’re ‘kicking against the goads’?
Best wishes, my cousin.
You find one instance, and you make it seem commonplace.
It sounds like someone wanting to cause “contentions among brothers.”
It’s a small issue, the genetic makeup of Jesus. I would think that Jehovah God could accomplish any occurrence He wanted to. But my reasoning on this subject (worth 2 cents), was that we are all descendants of Adam, and yet some of Jehovah’s people, with their imperfections, will survive this System’s end and eventually be made perfect ...Adamic DNA & all.
I must say, you come across as someone so bitter. I’m sorry for whatever’s the cause.
Could it be you’re ‘kicking against the goads’?
Best wishes, my cousin.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
The question is: How can Jesus be a son of Adam and have a different nature then all the rest?
There are basically two ideas.
The first is that Jesus had the same nature as Adam and that Adam's nature was different before he sinned.
The second is the idea of immaculate conception.
Both are false according to Scripture.
The first idea reject that Jesus was a son of Adam. Because all sons of Adam have the "fallen" nature.
The second idea makes Mary to have been of another nature so that she could give birth to someone of her same nature.
That means that Mary's mother had to have a different nature so she could give birth to Mary. And that means that Mary's grandmother had to have a different nature to give birth to Mary's mother...and so on down the line.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
True, yet there is more to it.
But this is a whole other discussion on the theology that you are depicting brother. Think about it. Maybe another thread.
Of course Son of Man of the New Testament is different to Ben Elohim of the Old Testament, but not always. Sometimes the translation of Bar Nasha matches a mere human referring to himself. And mind you, Daniel doesn't say Messiah, it is not explicit, it is only possible to call it "alludes to".
Nevertheless, Ben Elohim, Barenosh, Barnasha, all means human, though throughout the Bible various people have referred to themselves by this same title. Paul doesnt use it, though he was the proponent of the post resurrection theology. Revelations uses it once as if it is a passing comment with "one like a son of man". Also in Jesus's so called statements in the NT the Son of Man will come in all his glory before the disciples go through the towns, which means its a future thing while Jesus was still alive. Is it a different person or is it the resurrected Jesus he was speaking of? If its the resurrected Jesus, then what was he referring to himself as when saying Son of Man earlier from Mark?
Well. That will drag into a whole new conversation.
Interesting.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
True, yet there is more to it.
But this is a whole other discussion on the theology that you are depicting brother. Think about it. Maybe another thread.
Of course Son of Man of the New Testament is different to Ben Elohim of the Old Testament, but not always. Sometimes the translation of Bar Nasha matches a mere human referring to himself. And mind you, Daniel doesn't say Messiah, it is not explicit, it is only possible to call it "alludes to".
Nevertheless, Ben Elohim, Barenosh, Barnasha, all means human, though throughout the Bible various people have referred to themselves by this same title. Paul doesnt use it, though he was the proponent of the post resurrection theology. Revelations uses it once as if it is a passing comment with "one like a son of man". Also in Jesus's so called statements in the NT the Son of Man will come in all his glory before the disciples go through the towns, which means its a future thing while Jesus was still alive. Is it a different person or is it the resurrected Jesus he was speaking of? If its the resurrected Jesus, then what was he referring to himself as when saying Son of Man earlier from Mark?
Well. That will drag into a whole new conversation.
To add, there is another point to this, that Ezekiel is also the other person to be referred to as son of man. It is interesting that the term is used in such a limited few cases.
Yes, Daniel doesn't use the word Messiah explicitly in reference to the Son of Man. The idea that the Son of Man is the Messiah is a Jewish interpretation of the verse which Jesus was referring to, as he was Jewish.
I and yes, this could get dragged out. And I would probably have to read the Bible again in order to be a competent sparring partner.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Haha. That will be interesting.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
True, yet there is more to it.
But this is a whole other discussion on the theology that you are depicting brother. Think about it. Maybe another thread.
Of course Son of Man of the New Testament is different to Ben Elohim of the Old Testament, but not always. Sometimes the translation of Bar Nasha matches a mere human referring to himself. And mind you, Daniel doesn't say Messiah, it is not explicit, it is only possible to call it "alludes to".
Nevertheless, Ben Elohim, Barenosh, Barnasha, all means human, though throughout the Bible various people have referred to themselves by this same title. Paul doesnt use it, though he was the proponent of the post resurrection theology. Revelations uses it once as if it is a passing comment with "one like a son of man". Also in Jesus's so called statements in the NT the Son of Man will come in all his glory before the disciples go through the towns, which means its a future thing while Jesus was still alive. Is it a different person or is it the resurrected Jesus he was speaking of? If its the resurrected Jesus, then what was he referring to himself as when saying Son of Man earlier from Mark?
Well. That will drag into a whole new conversation.
It took a son of man to accomplish what he accomplished.
Look at John 5:27
Joh 5:27 And he has granted him authority to carry out judgment, because he is the Son of Man. The definite article is not in the original.
The judgment Jesus is to execute are alluded to in Daniel: "And he said, "Go, Daniel, for the words are secret and are sealed up until the time of the end. " Dan 12:9
The words that were sealed up were sealed with seven seals.
Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of the one who is seated on the throne a scroll, written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals.
Rev 5:2 And I saw a powerful angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and to break its seals?"
Rev 5:3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it.
Rev 5:4 And I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.
The only son of man worthy to open up the sealed up judgments that were written is the one who conquered sin and death. Jesus is the only man with the nature of man and be a son of man to conquer the flesh of man. And is therefore the only one worthy to open the sealed up judgment that are to come.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thanks for that.
But what is the relevance brother? I honestly dont get the relevance. I can see that you are making Jesus a divine being through the scripture. But what are you trying to say? Are you saying the mere statement Son of Man itself means a divine being?
In that case, you responded to a small post of mine. Can you consider what is said in that and respond? I would like to hear your relevant thoughts.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
The discussion was on the nature of Jesus and what it means to be son of man.
A JW here said that son of man does not mean son of adam (the first man) because all sons of man(adam) have a sinful nature. She said neither Jesus or Adam had a sinful nature.
I disagreed.
Son of adam simply means human being or man-kind. Jesus is of man-kind. Now, no longer mortal mankind.
So, I posted further evidence which supports my claim.
No one in heaven, or on earth, or under the earth is worthy to open the seven seals of judgment against mankind but the only one of mankind to conquer the sin and death that the first man of mankind brought into this world.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I agree.
Thats all a faith matter my friend. I dont wish to engage in faith matters in this thread. Hope you understand.