If Jesus is God then who gave God the authority per Matthew 28:18?
-
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!
Watchtower Governing Body: Are They The Exclusive Channel For God??
- Thread starter katiemygirl
- Start date
It is true that no one outside of God can give God anything, since God is the One who owns everything and gives his creatures all that they have.
But this says absolutely nothing about God's own inner life and internal communion. For instance, let us assume for the moment that God is a Triune Being, that there are three distinct Persons who exist as one Being (as I've noted in dozens of scripture references in previous posts). Then passages where Jesus is said to have received something from someone really pose no problem for Trinitarianism since you have one of the divine Persons granting authority to another, or for one member of the Godhead to be in subjection to another. After all, Christ is called God's Son for a reason, since this relationship implies a subjection of some kind on the part of the Son to the Father. Yet, much like earthly fathers can be greater in authority than their sons without this implying that the sons are inferior beings, the divine Father giving authority to his divine Son in no way implies that the latter is not God or is an inferior Being.
Here is a classic example of how one member of the Godhead can give to another member something without this implying that one of them isn't God. Note that the Father subjected all things to the Son, and that the Son gives to the Father the kingdom. Christ's sovereignty and supremacy is clearly seen in this passage (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) since he has the ability to destroy all other powers and authorities, bringing them into complete subjection to the Father. Thus, the Son receiving authority to rule no more disproves that he is God then the Father receiving the kingdom from his Son disproves that he is God also.
Another thing to keep in mind is that, according to the Scriptures, Christ voluntarily came down from heaven in order to assume the role of a slave, a servant. While on earth, the Lord Jesus subjected himself to the authority of the Father by "emptying Himself. Emptying Himself of what? Of His Divine Nature. So He does nothing of his own initiative, but only doing the very thing that the Father commanded and desired. And showed us how to live humbly as a man. For He "Who, being in very nature God (speaking of Jesus), did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" (Philippians 2:6)
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
When I was a member of the Anglican Church, I got fed up with the hypocrites I saw all the time in church. I asked lots of questions but never got a satisfying answer to any of them. I got tired of being told it was a mystery or just God's will that there was so much suffering.
I wondered why the church supported the soldiers being sent off to kill people in a war when God's law was "thou shalt not kill". I got a skewed answer to that question too. Justification was not what I was looking for...I wanted to know why the church did not practice what it preached. And why it's preaching was only done from the pulpit to people who already believed. What was the point of Jesus commanding his disciples to preach if we no longer considered it important?
You don't seem to realise how brainwashed Christendom is....you only see the supposed brainwashing of JW's.
I have heard of these so called errors in the NWT but no one has ever provided them so that we can show you the proof of the validity of our translation.
When I was studying the Bible with JW's years ago, I would not use anything but my own KJV. I saw the truth clearly stated as you said in my preferred translation of the Bible.
When I was looking for the truth all those years ago, I tried many different denominations of Christendom looking for the ones who didn't just talk the talk, but who actually did what Jesus commanded. None of them fitted the criteria...and where they fell short, there were excuses by the dozen. I don't believe that God accepts excuses.
Those "doing the will of God" are active in the work Jesus assigned to all his disciples. (Matt 28:19, 20) He said he would back this work right up to "the end of the age" so it wasn't just for those in the first century.
JW's ticked all the boxes for me.
They are not perfect, but then, neither were any of the apostles. Sinful humans are not capable of perfection just yet. The imperfection of Jesus' disciples did not prevent God from using them in a mighty way to declare the good news of the kingdom in the known world of that time.
But Jesus' instruction meant that "all the inhabited earth" had to hear his message before "the end" of the present system of things would come.......(Matt 24:14) It could not come from the muffled trumpet sounds of thousands of differing sects, but had to be one united message of one global brotherhood, who all hold the same beliefs, adhere to the same standards of conduct, and who all obey the teachings of Jesus Christ in every nation.
Christendom has no idea what God's kingdom is...so how can they preach about it? No one preaches in Christendom the way Jesus commanded. (Matt 10:11-14) No one from any church has ever approached me to offer the good news of God's kingdom....only JW's have done that. We don't expect anything but opposition and ridicule, just as Jesus said it would be. (John 15:18-21)
In a world ruled by the master of deception, nothing is as it appears. (1 John 5:19; 2 Cor 4:3, 4)
You are jumping to conclusions saying "Jesus emptied himself of divine nature". How do you know it is what the scripture means? Maybe it means he emptied himself of all self-will. "I do nothing of my own initiative, but do only what I see The Father doing". He emptied himself of his initiative.
Please define the divine nature that Jesus emptied himself of. Love? Wisdom? Justice? Understanding?
There are church's that do not practice what they preach as well as Christians. But whose to blame for those particular hypocrites? The translations that the church uses, the belief in the trinity, or are Those individual churches themselves to blame for their hypocrisy? It's a guilt by association where you seem to see churches you feel aren't applying Gods Word so you believe in part that there theology is thereby flawed? That's not good logic if that's the case is it? Just because some people don't practice what they preach doesn't make those scriptures they use or beliefs they have about a trinity any less true. It just makes those who say them hypocrites.
And like I said before in an earlier post, there are many denominations but one belief, that Jesus Christ is God, who gave Himself a ransom for our sins, so that all who believe will not die by have eternal life. As well as that God is Triune in nature as the scriptures tell us. Those denominations are United in the Christian Faith as laid to us by Jesus, despite any name differences.
And with the translation errors in the New World Translation to be frank about it, I'll just ask where do you want me be to start?
We could talk about how the Watchtower mistranslates scripture or assumes the text says something it clearly doesn't. We could also if you have the time talk about how the Watchtower mistranslates John 1:1 because of their theological bias against the deity of Christ (among many other like passages). We could discuss how the Watchtower made prophecies with how they interpreted the bible and they all failed (which should say at least something about there interpretation methods) We could talk about the scriptural bankrupt theology that Jesus is the arc angel Michael. Or perhaps how they used scripture to say that vaccinations were wrong for 20 years or organ transplants amounted to cannibalism for 12 years, or how they believe blood transfusions are bad despite absolutely no scripture to support it.
So I ask you to pick whatever subject and we'll discuss it.
So how does Philippians 2:7 say Christ emptied Himself? “Grammatically, Paul explains the ‘emptying’ of Jesus in the next phrase: ‘Taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of men’” (Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), humbled Himself and obediently accepted the role of the bondservant. As N.T. Wright stated: “The real humiliation of the incarnation and the cross is that the one who was himself God, and who never during the whole process stopped being God, could embrace such a vocation” (1986, p. 346).
Although this text does not instruct us regarding of what Christ emptied Himself, we can be assured that there was no change in His divine nature. While Jesus was on Earth, He claimed equality with God the Father (John 10:28) and allowed others to call him “God” (John 20:30; Matthew 16:16). He also accepted worship, even though He plainly taught that only God is worthy of worship (Matthew 8:2; Matthew 4:10). If one contends that Jesus was not divine while upon the Earth, then they make Him either a fraud or a madman.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
The fact that Christendom is not representative of Christianity in any way is proof that the problem goes way back before any of us were even thought about. If you have been raised to believe that Jesus is God and part of a triune godhead, and you think you have the scriptures to prove it...how easy will it be to purge that belief from your mind if you are shown evidence to the contrary? If you have been convinced from childhood that something is the truth, how hard is it to "unlearn" it? And yet I can find not one single passage of scripture where Jesus ever said he was God or shared equality in any way with his Father.
There is NO trinity in the Bible at all. Before the fourth century the trinity did not exist as church doctrine.
The Jews never believed it, so Jesus never taught it.
Jesus called his Father "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3) Even in heaven, Jesus still regards his Father as his God. (Rev 3:12)
Jesus always presented himself as God's son and his trusted apostle. ("One sent forth" Heb 3:1) Not once will you see the expression "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit". These are terms invented by the church.
There is no immortal soul taught in the Bible. We were created mortal for a reason. Souls die.(Ezekiel 18:4)
There is no hell of eternal torment in flames for the wicked for the simple reason, that there is no immortal soul to punish. (Eccl 9:5, 10)
There is no evidence from the Bible that the instrument used to put Christ to death was a cross. The instrument used is a "stauros" or "Xylon" which according a to Strongs Concordance means :
"Strong’s Definitions G3582; timber (as fuel or material); by implication, a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance:—staff, stocks, tree, wood."
The Latin "crux" meant the same thing...only later did it take on the connotation of a cross to suits Christendom's adoption of it.
Christ never commanded us to celebrate either his birth or his resurrection....only his death. We are told NOT to go "beyond what is written". Christendom has gone way beyond.
These are the core beliefs that identify Christendom...none of them are Biblical.
From my perspective, these beliefs just identify one as belonging to "Babylon the great". (Rev 18:4, 5) We are told to "get out of her" lest we want to share in her fate at God's hands. She is disgusting to him...like a spiritual harlot.
All of those beliefs mentioned above, do not originate in the Bible, they were born in original Babylon and permeate all religious cultures as they were spread about in the earth after Babel. The origins of the cross are very grubby indeed.
OK let's talk about John 1:1. I believe that the rest of the Bible itself and other portions of that chapter clarifies exactly what John wrote.
If you look at the translation of John 1:1 in Greek you will see the words used for both Jesus and his Father is "theos" which simply means a "mighty" or "powerful one". Since the divine name was removed from the Scriptures, identification of "God" (theos") from god (also "theos") was made using the definite article (THE)...particularly when they were mentioned together. When you see "God" referring to the Almighty....the definite article "ho" (THE) is used to identify him.
Please get an interlinear and read John 1:1. You will see that there is "theos" (meaning god as referring to a divine or powerful personage) and there is "ho theos" (meaning THE God) used to designate Yahweh.
The Logos is called simply "theos" (a god or mighty one) but Yahweh is called "ho theos" making him "the God". There are two divine individuals mentioned in this scripture......only one is Yahweh. This agrees with the rest of the scriptures where Jesus directed all worship to his God and Father. As the Logos, he was the spokesman used to communicate God's will to his people. He was also the one used by his Father in creation. (Col 1:15, 16) He is called the "firstborn of all creation" and "the beginning of the creation by God". (Rev 3:14) Further in John 1 at verse 18, the son of God is called "the only begotten god" (theos) indicating that he is a creation of his Father. Almighty God cannot be "begotten" by anyone. Some translations erroneously translate this verse as "only begotten son" but if they do that then they must also translate John 1:1 accordingly. "The Word was the son".
Please supply more of these so called errors and I will explain them.
It was not then God's time to reveal all. Revelation of truth is progressive...it always has been. That is why Paul called it "a sacred mystery". God reveals what we need to know, when we need to know it. Mistakes in interpretation are expected. In those early days there was a lot of unfulfilled expectations, but since we are still going strong and increasing in our ranks every day, we patiently wait for the light on the path to become brighter. (Prov 4:18) Only those outside see it as a problem. We never have. We were told to "keep on the watch" and we have. (Matt 24:42-44)
There is no actual confirmation in the Bible that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. It is not a doctrine...it is a belief based on what the scriptures themselves say about Jesus in his role as Messiah.
The scripture that links Jesus with the office of archangel was spoken by the apostle Paul who foretold : “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) In this scripture Jesus is described as having assumed his power as God’s Messianic King. Yet, he speaks with “an archangel’s voice.” Who but an archangel speaks with an archangel's voice? If Jesus was God, why use the voice of an inferior being? When God pronounced his approval of his son in 33CE, whose voice was heard?
Note, too, that he has the power to raise the dead....something Jesus is commissioned to do. (John 5:28, 29)
I still question the use of vaccinations to this day. This is my personal belief, not the belief of all of JW's. We are to use our God-given conscience on these matters. If vaccinations are what they are claimed to be, then why are we not immunised for life? This is the method God uses when we get an infection. Anti-bodies are naturally produced by our immune system that make us immune to that particular disease for life. In the old days, people deliberately infected their children when "childhood diseases" entered a villlage so that they would gain life-long immunity. Infection with these as adults was much more serious.
In the early days they were made using blood in many instances. Today there is better technology and artificially produced materials. No one is forced to do anything.
We have never been ones to rush into any decision especially about life and death matters without thorough investigation. The early days of transplantation were hardly something to stake your life on. These days the techniques have been refined and as long as all blood is washed and removed from the organs used, we can use transplantation again as a matter of conscience.
Did you know that there are more people who die after having transfusions than ever die from refusing one? Why do you think it makes headlines?
'Abstaining from blood' was one of the few "necessary things" that were reiterated for Christians in the NT. (Acts 15:28, 29) If you really knew the truth about blood transfusions you would avoid them like the plague.
Please Google bloodless medicine and surgery and see the advantages of refusing blood.
I doubt you could pick a subject that I haven't already settled for myself. You look for the flaws...I look for the advantages. I don't expect perfection and neither does God. I haven't found any disadvantages yet. I leave that for the defectors.....Ever wonder why ex JW's have never formed themselves into the one true faith and are out preaching the good news? No one can do it without the direction of Jesus Christ and the backing of God's spirit. (Matt 28:19)
Last edited:
Ok so many things to cover so I will spread them out over a few posts then.
I shall start off with us having an immaterial soul and spirit if you will.
It is true that the Hebrew word for soul Is nephesh and that it can be used as reference to living beings. It can be found in Genesis 2:7. But it is not "limited" to that sense.
Genesis 2:7 is simply telling us what man IS (a living being) not what he IS NOT. In other words, while Genesis 2:7 affirms that man is a living being it doesn't deny we have a immaterial nature. The word Nephesh is also used in the Old Testament to speak of the seat of emotions and experiences.
Mans Nephesh can be...
Sad (Deuteronomy 28:65)
Grieved (Job 30:25)
In pain (Psalm 13:12)
Distressed (Genesis 42:21)
Bitter (Job 3:20)
Troubled (Psalm 6:3)
And Cheered (Psalm 86:4)
These scriptures show Nephesh also refers to the "inner man" WITHIN the ham being. This is consistent with verses like 2 Kings 4:27, where we read "The man of God said, 'Let her alone for her soul is troubled Within her." Also verses such as Psalm 42:6 and Psalm 43:5.
The Soul Exists After Death:
In Matthew 10:28 Jesus says, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
What Jesus is saying here is that there is something about you which those who kill you (in your physical being) cannot touch! That something is that aspect of man which continues to exist after the body has been lowered into the grave.
After all if the word 'soul' is just another way of referring to the whole person as the Watchtower society teaches, then wouldn't the soul die when the physical body dies?
How do you reconcile the Watchtower position with Matthew 10:28 which clearly indicates that it is possible to kill the body WITHOUT killing the soul?
In Luke 20:38 we read of Jesus' words to the Sadducees regarding the Old Testament saints Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: "He (God) is not the God of the dead but OF THE LIVING, for all live to Him."
According to the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, "the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies."
In Luke 20:38, Jesus contradicts the law of the Sadducees. In effect He is saying, "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob though they died many years ago, are actually living today. For God, who calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is not the God of the dead but of the living."
Jesus clearly indicates that these Old Testament patriarchs are living 'at this present moment' even though they died many years ago.
And the tense of the word for 'live' is not future but present teaching that they are living now.
There's many more instances to point out but you left me many things to write and it is getting rather late lol so you'll have to forgive my sleepiness.
Now on to blood transfusions... Many people have died heeding the Watchtowers prohibitions on blood transfusions. Former Jehovahs Witnesses Leonard and Majorie Chretian commented:
"(One man told of) the heart rending decision he was forced to make between his religion and his child. His baby boy was born with a serious hernia. An immediate operation was required to save the child's life, but that it would require a blood transfusion. Jehovahs Witnesses are taught that this is against Gods law, and the penalty for not obeying this rule (at the time was) removal from the organization and isolation from all friends and family members who are Witnesses. The heartbroken father choose to obey "Gods law" and two days later, his baby died."
It is tragic that hundreds if not thousands of Jehovahs Witnesses and their children have died because they have put their confidence in this Distorted Watchtower interpretation of "blood" passages In the bible. The Watchtowers disallowal of a transfusion for the above mentioned babies reminds one of how harsh-minded and heartless Pharisees condemned and chastised Jesus for healing someone On the Sabbath (Luke 6:6-11).
Would you really allow your baby to die because of instructions from the Watchtower society?
The Watchtower has had a very bad track record regarding changing it's position on medical issues. Take vaccinations for example. The Golden Age Magazine (1931) said that a "vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood." Vaccinations were hence forbidden by the Watchtower Society for 20 years. However the Watchtower dropped it's prohibition in the 1950's. The Augusts issue in 1965 of 'Awake' magazine even acknowledged that vaccinations seem to have caused decrease in diseases. One must wonder how the parents of children who died as a result of NOT being vaccinated felt when the Watchtower Society suddenly reversed it view.
We find another example in the Watchtowers change of position on organ transplants. The November issue of The Watchtower magazine in 1967, said that organ transplants reverted to cannibalism and are not appropriate for Christians. Hence, organ transplants were forbidden for 13 years. During this time, many Jehovahs Witnesses died or suffered greatly as a result of not having such a transplant. But the Watchtower again changed it's view dating in another issue of The Watchtower magazine in 1980, that it wasn't necessarily cannibalistic and therefor allowed to them.
In light of the above changes, David Red comments:
"Given the Watchtowers track record of prohibiting vaccinations for 20 years then Reversing itself, and later banning organ transplants for 13 years before changing it's interpretation, one can only wonder how long it will be until the Society reinterprets the bible verses it now uses to forbid blood transfusions."
So, now with the Watchtowers history out of the way, let's consider if blood transfusions are biblical...
In his excellent book "Scripture Twisting", James Sire tells that the attempt to ban blood transfusions based in Genesis 9:4 and other such passages is a clear example of distortion of scripture." Indeed as he rightly points out that, "a transfusion replenishes the supply of essential, life sustaining fluid that has otherwise drained away or become incapable of performing it's vital tasks in the body. A blood transfusion is not even equivalent to intravenous feeding because the blood so given does NOT function AS FOOD."
Walter Martins agrees, commenting, "when one gives a transfusion, it is not a sacrifice of life, and the eating of forbidden blood, but a Transference of Life from one person to another, a Gift of Strength offered in a Spirit of Mercy and Charity (which is Love)."
Giving blood by transfusion is not 'feeding' as the blood is NOT received into the body as food. Eating is a literal taking in food in the normal manner through the mouth and into the digestive system.
And one final point. In the context of Genesis 9, it is the eating of animal blood that is prohibited, not the transfusion of human blood.
As Walter Martin and Norman Klann have observed:
"This verse, as it appears in Context, has not the remotest connection with human blood, much less blood transfusions. In the previous verse of the same chapter, Jehovah clearly tells Noah that He is speaking on reference to animals and THEIR flesh and that he should not eat THEIR blood. God told Noah that animal flesh was food with but one provision-that he eat not of the blood." Hence this verse does not prohibit the transfusion of human blood.
Sadly again, the Watchtower uses it's position to ban things that have no biblical vases to be banned and therefor a man made tradition just like the Pharisees in Jesus day. As always, please look into these things more for your soul is at stake. Thanks and as always, God Bless.
John 1:1
So the Watchtower argues that since the second occurrence of theos ("God") in John 1:1 has no definite article ("the") it this refers to a lesser deity who simply has godlike qualities. But must theos ("God") without the ho ("the") refer to someone less than Jehovah? By no means!
The Greek word 'Theos' without the definite article 'ho' is used of Jehovah Himself in the New Testament with the exact same Greek construction used in John 1:1. Indeed, the "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" used in most Seminaries states the truth, that the word theos is used "quite predominantly of the True God, sometimes with, sometimes without the article." An example of this is in Luke 20:38, where we read of Jehovah, "He is A GOD, not of the dead, but of the living.
Secondly, everyone has observed how inconsistent the Watchtower Society translates occurrence is theos ("God") without the article. It's been noted that there are 282 such occurrences in the New Testament. At 16 places the NWT has (similar to its translation of John 1:1) either a god, god, gods, or godly.
16 out of 282 means that the NWT translators were faithful to their translation principle only 6% of the time. In other words, in the great majority of occurrences of theos without the article in the New Testament, the Watchtower did NOT translate it as "a god." Their choice to translate John 1:1 this way shows their extreme theological bias against the absolute deity of Christ shown throughout the Bible.
Did you know that if the Watchtower was consistent in translating other verses like they did in John 1:1, we'd have some very strange sounding verses? For example:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of A GOD." (Matthew 5:9)
"There came a man who was sent from A GOD whose name was A JOHN." (JOHN 1:6)
What does it say to you that the Watchtower translates the above verses correctly, but then sticks an indefinite article in John 1:1 in reference to Christ: "a god"? Are you sure you want to trust in the New World Translation?
Did you know that the overwhelming majority of credible Greek scholars in the world say the Watchtower Society is absolutely wrong and even deceptive in its translation including in John 1:1?
And finally, since the Watchtower Society claims that the phrase 'ho theos' ("the God") is not used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, while in Fact, John 20:28, Matthew 1:23, and Hebrews 1:8 DO USE this phrase of Jesus Christ, doesn't this mean the Watchtower Society is a False Prophet (including all the false prophecies they made that didn't come true)?
The New World Translation states multiple times that Jesus is YHWY or Jehovah. You can see for yourself if you have a minute.
Psalms 102:25-27 (NWT)
"Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away. But you are the same, and your years will never end."
Now, who is this scripture about? Jehovah right? It's saying Jehovahs immutable, unchangeable, the creator of All things. It couldn't be anyone else. Only Jehovah created All things and doesn't change right? Ok, now if you can, turn to Hebrews 1:6 (NWT)
6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
7 Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
8 BUT ABOUT THE SON, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.*
9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
10 AND (Still speaking about the Son-Jesus): “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out,
12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.”
And in the New World Translation there should be a little footnote that's says Psalm 102.
Psalm 102 is clearly about Jehovah. So why does the writer of Hebrews so plainly apply them to Jesus. Could you get back to me on that and maybe I can show you some more in the New World Translation.
Finally, it is interesting to observe that the early Christians who had a solidly Jewish background, did not hesitate to refer to Jesus as Lord and God (Romans 10:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 1 Peter 2:3, 3:15). Indeed, despite their commitment to Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, they had no scruple about applying to Jesus many Old Testament texts that were originally written in reference to YHWY. For example:
In Revelation 1:7 Jesus is seen to be the pierced Yahweh who is described in Zechariah 12:10.
The reference to Yahweh and Elohim in Isaiah 40:3 is seen to be fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ in Mark 1:2-4.
Calling upon Yahweh in Joel 2:32 is seen as identical and parellel to calling upon Jesus in Romans 10:13.
The glory of Yahweh in Isaiah 6:1-5 is said to be the glory of Jesus in John 12:41.
Yahweh's voice "like the roar of rushing waters" (Ezekiel 43:2) is identical to Jesus' voice "like the sound of rushing waters" (Revelation 1:15).
The description of Yahweh as an everlasting light in Isaiah 60:19-20 is seen as identical to the statement about Jesus as an everlasting light in Revelation 21:23.
There are dozens of these but I wanted to make this post not too big.
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
I do not understand how you can claim any of this. Do you actually believe that Moses or Noah or Elijah or any person from the old testament actually said "JEHOVAH"? No one in the Bible at all ever uttered the word "JEHOVAH". Do a little research, just a little, and see where the word JEHOVAH originated.
Jesus did say, "hallowed be thy name", but when and where did "JESUS" ever say "JEHOVAH"?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Adjustments?
The history of the organization shows more than "adjustments." There have been major doctrinal changes, flip flops.
not really...the changes have always been minor. No teaching has been completely overturned or omitted...the only changes that have occured are to the understanding of the teachings
For example, the early bible students all agreed that there was a great crowd and a group numbering 144,000. Originally they thought these two groups were both in heaven serving before Gods throne....later it was understood by them that the Great Crowd are actually an earthly group also known as the 'other sheep' spoken of by Jesus. So the teaching was adjusted from 'everyone goes to heaven' (as is taught by most churches) to 'the Great Crowd have an earthly inheritance while only a small number of 144000 have a heavenly inheritance'
They also only adjusted their understanding of who the faithful and discreet slave is.... at first they thought it was an individual and wrongly applied it to Brother Russel...after Russel's death they realized it must apply to more then one person considering the feeding of spiritual food to the christian congregation would be ongoing. Today they understand it to apply to all of the governing body of the christian congregation who provide the spiritual food.
So their is still a faithful and discreet slave, there is still a Great Crowd and a 144,000. The main teachings are still there, they have just changed a little of the definition.
No one has adjusted the bible or what is written in it. It is in the bible that you find the 'great crowd' and the '144000' and the 'faithful and discreet slave' and the 'anti-christ' and the 'apostasy' and many more teachings. But unfortunately all the different denominations of christians in the world have their own, and very different, ideas of what all these mean.
You dont even believe there is a group numbering 144,000 who are taken from earth to serve as Kings and Priests in heaven. Yet its written in Gods Word.
So what do you make of that? Why dont all the christians have a clear idea on these bible teachings???
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
If you dont believe what the WT teaches, you dont become a JW. Its pretty simple. No one is forced.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Jesus declared in prayer to his Father: “I have made your name known . . . and will make it known.” John 17:26
How he said it in greek and hebrew is different to how we say it in english.... thats the funny thing about languages.
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
Jesus never taught to abstain from blood either. So your opinion on the trinity carries no weight.
Christians DO have a clear understanding on these teachings. The understanding is there false. Mistranslated, bias, and error filled when you read the text in context and view it through All of scripture. The Watchtower was started in the late 1800's or around there. So does that mean God was without a witness for 1,900 years? So until the Great Watchtower Society came and lighted our path with there... Er... I mean the truth of the bible. So All the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Scholars for 1,900 years throughout the world who studied there whole lives got the doctrines of the bible wrong? And only the Watchtower got it right?
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
How did He make God's personal name known? Jesus never said it?
True, but as Christians we are commanded to preach the gospel and dispell any false gospel that leads people astray. The Watchtower qualifies so it is our duty to do so.
True, and if the Jehovahs Witnesses are so particular to follow Christ, to the point of not having birthdays then why not follow His example as He never called God Jehovah?