Watchtower Governing Body: Are They The Exclusive Channel For God??

[katiemygirl]

Jesus entered the world to teach us to be the living, walking, breathing light of God in our own lives.

Of course Jesus was seen as God in the flesh. That is what a faithful image does.

He did not come to show us what we cannot be, but what we can be.

He was God in the flesh. Only God, Himself, could accomplish what was done on the cross for us, forgiveness of sins. Even the Jews understood that. That's why they accused Him of blasphemy.

 

[JFish123]

really good history lesson of the JW and everything - From'The Way of the Master' Show, Preaching the Truth of Jesus Christ with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron

 

[JFish123]

A Great Read

 

[JFish123]

Times running out for the generation of 1914 in this 2 minute clip

 

[katiemygirl]

View attachment 9920
A Great Read

I've heard this is excellent!

 

[Pegg]

I have to accept what God's word says.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Gen1:27

Yes, our nature should reflect God's image, but because of A&E's sin, we also have a human nature that wants to sin.

Thats right. And that is why the scriptures tell us that we are 'conceived in sin'

Psalm 51:5 Look! I was born guilty of error, And my mother conceived me in sin.

No parent who sins can bring forth a perfect sinless child. Sin is more then what we do...its also how we are programmed in the womb. Babies have been known to be taught while still inside the womb. They hear what goes on and show that they recognise the voices of their parents and other relatives. A mother who suffers with anxiety can pass her anxiety onto her baby... mankind is being duplicated through the process of dna...children become copies of their parents and that includes their sinful tendencies.

So if we consider all that, then we can understand why a child is still sinful regardless of whether they have deliberately committed sin or not. Its only a matter of time before they begin to exhibit the sinful traits of their parents. They can't avoid it.

Isnt this the reason why we need Christs sin atoning sacrifice? Through him we will eventually have all sinful traits removed. But a person who does not believe they have sinful traits are not likely to respond to the message of repentance.

 

[Pegg]

That idea strikes a sadness in me, for, years ago I had a dear friend who was dying of a failing heart and when he asked my opinion about accepting a transplant, I told him the same thing I said here in this forum.

He was not even thirty years old yet and the fact is that his heart was failing so fast he would have had little time to wait on the transplant list.

He died without me knowing whether he had refused a transplant due to my shared opinion or if it was just a case of his heart failing too quickly to be able to get a transplant.

But that has left me feeling bad for having been honest with him about my opinion.

This is why I dont like telling people what they should do. When people ask our opinions, its usually because they are unsure how to proceed. But if they base their decision on what you or I would do, then they are not living by their own conscience...they are living by ours.

And this is why, when there is no clear biblical law against something, the GB say it is up to the individuals conscience to decide. In the end, any decision made is strictly between God and the individual making the decision. Nobody else is going to have to answer for that persons decision except themselves.

 

[Pegg]

Not defend. Show it's truth WITH scripture and a lot of it. Unlike Watchtower theology which has very little support in scripture context. Really can't defend the Truth of scripture especially when it's right before your eyes like the hundred of verses which shows the Truth I'm afraid.

How do you feel with the knowledge that the pro-trinitarian clergy put people to death for not believing in their trinity?

Did God or Jesus ever give the apostles the right to kill christians who did not believe their teaching?

Dont you realise that the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' are these very ones who introduced such doctrines??

 

[Pegg]

So you believe that, "sin enter[ing] into the world and death through sin", shows it entered the world genetically?

Why could it not have been just as we are told?
Deuteronomy 4:9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;

Isaiah 43:27 Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.

Leviticus 4:27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

1 Peter 1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

Why do you side-step the importance of that with your "inherited sin" fallacy, which is a phrase no where found in the Bible?

Is it more important to you to be seen as right than it is to be correct in what you understand?

Job 14:4 Who can produce someone clean from someone unclean?+ No one can!

 

[JFish123]

How do you feel with the knowledge that the pro-trinitarian clergy put people to death for not believing in their trinity?

Did God or Jesus ever give the apostles the right to kill christians who did not believe their teaching?

Dont you realise that the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' are these very ones who introduced such doctrines??

So instead of explaining why the hundred plus verses of scripture that Proves a Trinity, is somehow false, you change the subject by trying to equate the theology of the trinity is false, because there were evil people who killed for it? Is that not guilt by association? Can the word of God be proven false because of what some evil men do In there flesh?Guilt by association is never a good thing to argue for I'm afraid.

 

[Pegg]

So instead of explaining why the hundred plus verses of scripture that Proves a Trinity, is somehow false, you change the subject by trying to equate the theology of the trinity is false, because there were evil people who killed for it? Is that not guilt by association? Can the word of God be proven false because of what some evil men do In there flesh?Guilt by association is never a good thing to argue for I'm afraid.

It has been explained by multiple scholars over the centuries as to why the trinity is a false doctrine. Its not based on the bible. The so-called proof texts have been shown to be wrongly applied and interpreted and taken way out of context.

I dont need to debate it with you...believe it if you want.

Btw, there is a biblical precedent for 'guilty by association'
2John 1:9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.+ The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son.+10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes+ or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

Notice how John says to remain in the teaching of Christ one must have BOTH 'Father and Son'

Trinitarians have only 'one'... therefore they are not in Christs teaching and they dont know either Father or Son.

 

[JFish123]

It has been explained by multiple scholars over the centuries as to why the trinity is a false doctrine. Its not based on the bible. The so-called proof texts have been shown to be wrongly applied and interpreted and taken way out of context.

I dont need to debate it with you...believe it if you want.

Btw, there is a biblical precedent for 'guilty by association'
2John 1:9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.+ The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son.+10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes+ or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

Notice how John says to remain in the teaching of Christ one must have BOTH 'Father and Son'

Trinitarians have only 'one'... therefore they are not in Christ's teaching and they dont know either Father or Son.

Still don't see how the hundred plus verses that clearly shows the same attributes and works of God is given to each of the three persons in the trinity is somehow false. And Christ's teaching was that He was God. I don't know how much more He had to say it and show it for you to understand and believe, but He did. To deny that as you are, pushing ahead with that as it were, whose really not following in the teaching of Christ? I say not to mock, but to warn.

 

[Pegg]

Still don't see how the hundred plus verses that clearly shows the same attributes and works of God is given to each of the three persons in the trinity is somehow false. And Christ's teaching was that He was God.

Matt 16;13 Now when he had come into the parts of Caes·a·reʹa Phi·lipʹpi, Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?”+ 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist,+ others E·liʹjah,+ still others Jeremiah or one of theprophets.” 15 He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?”+ 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ,+ the Son of the living God.”+17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah,*because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did

A 'Son' is what Jesus confirmed he was. He never once ever anywhere said that the was the Father.

 

[JFish123]

Matt 16;13 Now when he had come into the parts of Caes·a·reʹa Phi·lipʹpi, Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?”+ 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist,+ others E·liʹjah,+ still others Jeremiah or one of theprophets.” 15 He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?”+ 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ,+ the Son of the living God.”+17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah,*because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did

A 'Son' is what Jesus confirmed he was. He never once ever anywhere said that the was the Father.

The notion that the title 'Son of God' indicates inferiority to the Father is based on a faulty conception of the phrase "son of..." Meant among the ancients. Though the term can refer to "offspring of" in some contexts, it also carries the important meaning "of the order of." The phrase is often used that way on the Old Testament.
For example, "sons of the prophets" meant "of the order of the prophets" (1 Kings 20:35). "Sons of the singers" meant "of the order of singers" (Nehemiah 12:28). Likewise, the phrase "Son of God" means "of the order of God," and represents claim to Undiminished Deity.
The ancients used the phrase "son of..." To indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being. Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood that He was making a claim to be God in an unqualified sense.
From the earliest days of Christianity, the phrase "Son of God" was understood to be fully equivalent to God. This is why, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." (John 17:9).
Recognizing that Jesus was identifying Himself as God, the Jews wanted to put Him to death for committing blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16).
And Jesus was the Son before his life on earth in many ways including speaking as the Son of God (John 8:54-56), and asserting His eternal preexistence before Abraham (verse 58).

 

[Pegg]

The notion that the title 'Son of God' indicates inferiority to the Father is based on a faulty conception of the phrase "son of..." Meant among the ancients. Though the term can refer to "offspring of" in some contexts, it also carries the important meaning "of the order of." The phrase is often used that way on the Old Testament.
For example, "sons of the prophets" meant "of the order of the prophets" (1 Kings 20:35). "Sons of the singers" meant "of the order of singers" (Nehemiah 12:28). Likewise, the phrase "Son of God" means "of the order of God,"

Sure, i dont have a problem with that.

All the angels of heaven are likewise of the order of God if you want to put it that way.

The bible calls all the angles 'sons of God' therefore they are also 'of the order of God' by this logic

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?+... 7 When the morning stars+ joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God*+ began shouting in applause?​

and represents claim to Undiminished Deity.

This however is absolutely illogical. There are myriads of spirits in heaven.....all are called 'sons of God' .... they are not all God though.

Jesus is one of the 'sons of God'.... it doesnt mean he is God himself.

The ancients used the phrase "son of..." To indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being. Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood that He was making a claim to be God in an unqualified sense.

Adam is called 'son of God' in the bible

Luke 3:38 son of Eʹnosh,+
son of Seth,+
son of Adam,+
son of God.

So by your own reasoning once again, Adam must also be God too, yes?

 

[JFish123]

Sure, i dont have a problem with that.

All the angels of heaven are likewise of the order of God if you want to put it that way.

The bible calls all the angles 'sons of God' therefore they are also 'of the order of God' by this logic

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?+... 7 When the morning stars+ joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God*+ began shouting in applause?​

This however is absolutely illogical. There are myriads of spirits in heaven.....all are called 'sons of God' .... they are not all God though.

Jesus is one of the 'sons of God'.... it doesnt mean he is God himself.



Adam is called 'son of God' in the bible

Luke 3:38 son of Eʹnosh,+
son of Seth,+
son of Adam,+
son of God.

So by your own reasoning once again, Adam must also be God too, yes?

John 1:14- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the "One and Only", who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Take a minute to understand what John is saying. Look at the glory and majesty John attributes to Jesus. Adam never had that praise, David was praised, but never at that level. Only Jesus received that recognition. For further elaborating, the passage here illustrates that the glory attributed to Jesus was a glory found only in a unique relationship with God.
John 1:18- "No one has ever seen God, but God, the "One and Only", who is at the Father's side has made him known."
Here, Jesus as the unique Son of God is revealed to be at the Father's side. No other person who is called "son of God" has ever been revealed to be at the Father's side.
John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9 are other verses where "monogenes" is used in reference to Jesus.
The N.T. scriptures show that when Jesus is referred to as the only "Son" of God it means Jesus is the unique "Son" of God. With respect to being a "Son of God", “monogenes” is only used for Jesus.
When Jesus was brought before Pilate the Jews said, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." [John 19:7]
If Jesus were only speaking metaphorically the Jews would not have brought him to trial on such a charge as blasphemy. [Death was the penalty for blasphemy - ref. Lev. 24:16]. The Jews knew and understood Psalms 82:6, and they had no problem with a metaphorical statement. The Jews objected to Jesus claiming to be the unique, the eternal, "Son" of God as it meant to them that He was EQUAL with God.

 

[Pegg]

John 1:14- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the "One and Only", who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Take a minute to understand what John is saying. Look at the glory and majesty John attributes to Jesus. Adam never had that praise, David was praised, but never at that level. Only Jesus received that recognition. For further elaborating, the passage here illustrates that the glory attributed to Jesus was a glory found only in a unique relationship with God.
John 1:18- "No one has ever seen God, but God, the "One and Only", who is at the Father's side has made him known."
Here, Jesus as the unique Son of God is revealed to be at the Father's side. No other person who is called "son of God" has ever been revealed to be at the Father's side.
John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9 are other verses where "monogenes" is used in reference to Jesus.
The N.T. scriptures show that when Jesus is referred to as the only "Son" of God it means Jesus is the unique "Son" of God. With respect to being a "Son of God", “monogenes” is only used for Jesus.
When Jesus was brought before Pilate the Jews said, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." [John 19:7]
If Jesus were only speaking metaphorically the Jews would not have brought him to trial on such a charge as blasphemy. [Death was the penalty for blasphemy - ref. Lev. 24:16]. The Jews knew and understood Psalms 82:6, and they had no problem with a metaphorical statement. The Jews objected to Jesus claiming to be the unique, the eternal, "Son" of God as it meant to them that He was EQUAL with God.

Can you read those scriptures you posted...

'No one has ever seen God' How can God be Jesus if no one has ever seen him?

The Jews objected to Jesus claim that he had come from heaven. Thats what they objected to. Never did they think he was God.

 

[JFish123]

Can you read those scriptures you posted...

'No one has ever seen God' How can God be Jesus if no one has ever seen him?

The Jews objected to Jesus claim that he had come from heaven. Thats what they objected to. Never did they think he was God.

According to John 5:37, Jesus said that no one had ever seen God at anytime or ever heard his voice. And yet people did see Jesus, which proves that Jesus cannot be God.
That's the point your trying to make right?
As it is often the case in polemical arguments, the paraphrase of the passage misrepresents Jesus’ words in several ways. Jesus did not make a general statement ("no one ever") but addressed a particular group of people ("you"). Moreover, he spoke about the Father, not about God in general. Since Jesus is the Son, not the Father, the above conclusion is invalid. Here is what that passage actually says:
"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent." John 5:37-38
The questioner is assuming that Jesus meant that no one at any time has seen God or heard his voice, when in actuality his comments were addressed to a specific group, not to everyone. Jesus was saying that those specific Jews whom he was directly addressing hadn't seen or heard God. But even here Jesus clearly says that the Father has testified concerning him, implying that God had indeed spoken and revealed himself in some way to people in order to testify on behalf of his Son.
The following Scriptures explicitly state that many have both seen and heard from God:
"Micaiah continued, 'Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left.
1 Kings 22:19
"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple..."
Isaiah 6:1-8
"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened." Daniel 7:9-10
To summarize, the passage is not denying that people have seen or heard from God. It is simply stating that those particular Jews, whom the Lord Jesus was addressing, showed through their unbelief that God hadn't enabled them to accept and realize the fact that the Person standing before them was God's self-revelation to them. In other words, it wasn't that God hadn't made himself known to them, since he definitely had in the Scriptures and through the Person and work of Christ. But that, despite the revelation they were receiving, God hadn't set them free from their spiritual blindness in order to be able to discern the fact that he was clearly speaking to them in his Son.

 

[Pegg]

According to John 5:37, Jesus said that no one had ever seen God at anytime or ever heard his voice. And yet people did see Jesus, which proves that Jesus cannot be God.
That's the point your trying to make right?
As it is often the case in polemical arguments, the paraphrase of the passage misrepresents Jesus’ words in several ways. Jesus did not make a general statement ("no one ever") but addressed a particular group of people ("you"). Moreover, he spoke about the Father, not about God in general. Since Jesus is the Son, not the Father, the above conclusion is invalid. Here is what that passage actually says:
"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent." John 5:37-38
The questioner is assuming that Jesus meant that no one at any time has seen God or heard his voice, when in actuality his comments were addressed to a specific group, not to everyone. Jesus was saying that those specific Jews whom he was directly addressing hadn't seen or heard God. But even here Jesus clearly says that the Father has testified concerning him, implying that God had indeed spoken and revealed himself in some way to people in order to testify on behalf of his Son.
The following Scriptures explicitly state that many have both seen and heard from God:
"Micaiah continued, 'Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left.
1 Kings 22:19
"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple..."
Isaiah 6:1-8
"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened." Daniel 7:9-10
To summarize, the passage is not denying that people have seen or heard from God. It is simply stating that those particular Jews, whom the Lord Jesus was addressing, showed through their unbelief that God hadn't enabled them to accept and realize the fact that the Person standing before them was God's self-revelation to them. In other words, it wasn't that God hadn't made himself known to them, since he definitely had in the Scriptures and through the Person and work of Christ. But that, despite the revelation they were receiving, God hadn't set them free from their spiritual blindness in order to be able to discern the fact that he was clearly speaking to them in his Son.

Im not getting into any of this until you comment on why the bible says that Adam was called 'son of God' and how it applies to you argument that it being titled with 'Son of God' equals 'undiminished deity'

 

[JFish123]

Im not getting into any of this until you comment on why the bible says that Adam was called 'son of God' and how it applies to you argument that it being titled with 'Son of God' equals 'undiminished deity'

I already answered both in both previous messages. I can't help you see it. I'm sorry.