Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Brian2]

God is the Originator of life for anyone and anything. And -- have a nice day.

Maybe in Rev 3:14 it should be translated as " 'Ruler' of the creation of God." I think that is attested in the scriptures in other places also.

 

[Iymus]

This should be my final post here. I already addressed the OP and it seems silence may have finally become golden for him. Tired of seeing the unnecessary back and forth but perhaps my opinion shouldn't matter and i can always unwatch the thread

For the most part i can remain silent especially when my name isn't tagged in the conversation.

As someone who accepts the New Testament I already mentioned The Word did not create anything because it was not of his authority neither of his will " response were crickets".

Even did a post on it but guess how many trinitarians went back and forth? 0
Micro Level and Macro Level of New Testament

I also asked if the Word was the Son of God before he came in the flesh or after. Why did I ask? Because the definition and concept of a son is simple as is the definition and concept of a father.

what does is mean to be the father of something ; like father of modern medicine, science, etc?
what does it means to be the son of something?
When did God become a Father?
What does it mean to be an owner, possessor, above all?
Lastly what does it mean to be an inheritor?

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

we are without excuse and so is using a potentially bias translation of Rev 3:14 to deny that the life that the word has in himself came from the father.

 

[Brian2]

This should be my final post here. I already addressed the OP and it seems silence may have finally become golden for him. Tired of seeing the unnecessary back and forth but perhaps my opinion shouldn't matter and i can always unwatch the thread

Jesus claim to be the Son of God was upsetting to the Jews in John 10. The Jews saw it as a claim to be equal to God, and they were right that Jesus was claiming that but in other places we see Jesus explaining what being the Son meant in terms of relationship. Jesus was the Son in a Father/Son relationship and His life came from His Father and He is subject to His Father even if all that the Father has belongs to Jesus and Jesus can do all things that the Father can do. But when was Jesus born? We know He was born on earth and is known as the Son of God because of that but we also know that He was the Son before that and was equal in nature to His Father before that.

As someone who accepts the New Testament I already mentioned The Word did not create anything because it was not of his authority neither of his will " response were crickets".

That the Father created all things through His Word is seen in the OT and that this Word is His Son is seen in the NT. The Father sent His Son/Word out to create and that is what He did. God created all things through His Son. I guess it is for this reason that Rev 3:14 using "originator" has potential as a correct translation even if I see Rev 3:14 using "ruler" as a better alternative and certainly better than "beginning", meaning first thing. It has this meaning only once in John's writings. And of course if all things that came into existence came into existence through the Word it means that the Word cannot be one of those things.

Even did a post on it but guess how many trinitarians went back and forth? 0
Micro Level and Macro Level of New Testament

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...o-level-of-new-testament.230091/#post-6534570

All things came by the Father also, Heb 2:10, Romans 11:36. (same Greek word as "through"--dia)
The Son came as a servant, Israel, to do the will of the one who sent Him, the one who told Him what to say. The Son does nothing of His own authority. Yet there is nobody like Yahweh, who can we compare Yahweh with? The NT compares Yahweh with Jesus and says they have the same nature and the Son can do all that the Father does and has the same glory and is exactly like His Father. The NT tells us that the in many places by implication that Jesus has the name Yahweh. The Son is not Yahweh Junior, another God/god. The Son is Yahweh.
It certainly would have been easy for God to tell us that Jesus is not equal to Him and that Jesus is a created being or had a beginning, but no, God points to His Son as His equal, as Yahweh, and the Son points to the Father as the only true God. Why is the Father the only true God which Jesus also is Yahweh, because the Son has all things through and from His Father, including life, but that does not mean that this had to have a beginning.

I also asked if the Word was the Son of God before he came in the flesh or after. Why did I ask? Because the definition and concept of a son is simple as is the definition and concept of a father.

The Father is the source of the Son. Isn't that the definition.

what does is mean to be the father of something ; like father of modern medicine, science, etc?
what does it means to be the son of something?
When did God become a Father?
What does it mean to be an owner, possessor, above all?
Lastly what does it mean to be an inheritor?

The Son is "Eternal Father" which can also be translated "Father of Eternity".
God has always been the Father because His Son has always been with and in Him.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

we are without excuse and so is using a potentially bias translation of Rev 3:14 to deny that the life that the word has in himself came from the father.

The life that the Word has in himself came from the Father but the Word was not created even if the Word stepped into creation when He took on the nature of a servant and the likeness of a man. His body became His Temple but we worship the Divine in Him.

 

[Iymus]

Jesus claim to be the Son of God was upsetting to the Jews in John 10.

Son of God of Heaven and Earth & God of Heaven and Earth are not the same. One is a possesor and the other a possession. One is the owner and the other can receive an inheritance and be exhalted.

If your earthly father gives you all he has, or you inherit all he has; that does not make you him literally. One of you proocedeth forth and came from the other; not of yourself.

That the Father created all things through His Word is seen in the OT

Whether that statement is true or not it does not change that the word is beginning of creation. The Word is what made God a Father. The Father possessed his wisdom from himself and thru his wisdom he possessed his word. Creation has an origin and The Word has an origin all things are of the Heavenly Father. One Authority , One Will One Existence Eph 4:6

The Son is "Eternal Father" which can also be translated "Father of Eternity".

Call no Man your Heavenly Father and no exceptions and no excuses.
specifically, everlasting father is eternal high priest under the new covenant.

God has always been the Father because His Son has always been with and in Him.

You have no proof of before the beginning only in the beginning. Seems very disingenuous when people pretend or think that they do.
Before your earthy father had his firstborn has he always been a father?

The life that the Word has in himself came from the Father but the Word was not created

The life that all existence has in itself originates from the Father of Existence. I just looked up the definition of create this seems to be an insane argument.

The life that the Word has in himself came from the Father but the Word was not created even if the Word stepped into creation when He took on the nature of a servant and the likeness of a man. His body became His Temple but we worship the Divine in Him.

Romanticism and Superfluous; especially in regards to the topic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus in the flesh on earth had the same nature as His Father plus the nature of a servant. Phil 2
The Father was greater, being the Father and in heaven and with all power and authority and with Jesus having taken the nature of a servant and humbled Himself to live as a man etc but in nature they were equally divine.

What does having the same nature mean? Come on, according to the trinity, it's like Jesus was a double whammy. One God and one not God. Ridiculous to say they were equally divine, whatever that means.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus claim to be the Son of God was upsetting to the Jews in John 10. The Jews saw it as a claim to be equal to God, and they were right that Jesus was claiming that but in other places we see Jesus explaining what being the Son meant in terms of relationship. Jesus was the Son in a Father/Son relationship and His life came from His Father and He is subject to His Father even if all that the Father has belongs to Jesus and Jesus can do all things that the Father can do. But when was Jesus born? We know He was born on earth and is known as the Son of God because of that but we also know that He was the Son before that and was equal in nature to His Father before that.



That the Father created all things through His Word is seen in the OT and that this Word is His Son is seen in the NT. The Father sent His Son/Word out to create and that is what He did. God created all things through His Son. I guess it is for this reason that Rev 3:14 using "originator" has potential as a correct translation even if I see Rev 3:14 using "ruler" as a better alternative and certainly better than "beginning", meaning first thing. It has this meaning only once in John's writings. And of course if all things that came into existence came into existence through the Word it means that the Word cannot be one of those things.


All things came by the Father also, Heb 2:10, Romans 11:36. (same Greek word as "through"--dia)
The Son came as a servant, Israel, to do the will of the one who sent Him, the one who told Him what to say. The Son does nothing of His own authority. Yet there is nobody like Yahweh, who can we compare Yahweh with? The NT compares Yahweh with Jesus and says they have the same nature and the Son can do all that the Father does and has the same glory and is exactly like His Father. The NT tells us that the in many places by implication that Jesus has the name Yahweh. The Son is not Yahweh Junior, another God/god. The Son is Yahweh.
It certainly would have been easy for God to tell us that Jesus is not equal to Him and that Jesus is a created being or had a beginning, but no, God points to His Son as His equal, as Yahweh, and the Son points to the Father as the only true God. Why is the Father the only true God which Jesus also is Yahweh, because the Son has all things through and from His Father, including life, but that does not mean that this had to have a beginning.



The Father is the source of the Son. Isn't that the definition.



The Son is "Eternal Father" which can also be translated "Father of Eternity".
God has always been the Father because His Son has always been with and in Him.



The life that the Word has in himself came from the Father but the Word was not created even if the Word stepped into creation when He took on the nature of a servant and the likeness of a man. His body became His Temple but we worship the Divine in Him.

How can the son do everything the father can do if he couldn't fly up to heaven before he died? I hate to say this but I will. Because he was enclosed in the flesh and couldn't get out?

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus claim to be the Son of God was upsetting to the Jews in John 10. The Jews saw it as a claim to be equal to God, and they were right that Jesus was claiming that but in other places we see Jesus explaining what being the Son meant in terms of relationship. Jesus was the Son in a Father/Son relationship and His life came from His Father and He is subject to His Father even if all that the Father has belongs to Jesus and Jesus can do all things that the Father can do. But when was Jesus born? We know He was born on earth and is known as the Son of God because of that but we also know that He was the Son before that and was equal in nature to His Father before that.



That the Father created all things through His Word is seen in the OT and that this Word is His Son is seen in the NT. The Father sent His Son/Word out to create and that is what He did. God created all things through His Son. I guess it is for this reason that Rev 3:14 using "originator" has potential as a correct translation even if I see Rev 3:14 using "ruler" as a better alternative and certainly better than "beginning", meaning first thing. It has this meaning only once in John's writings. And of course if all things that came into existence came into existence through the Word it means that the Word cannot be one of those things.


All things came by the Father also, Heb 2:10, Romans 11:36. (same Greek word as "through"--dia)
The Son came as a servant, Israel, to do the will of the one who sent Him, the one who told Him what to say. The Son does nothing of His own authority. Yet there is nobody like Yahweh, who can we compare Yahweh with? The NT compares Yahweh with Jesus and says they have the same nature and the Son can do all that the Father does and has the same glory and is exactly like His Father. The NT tells us that the in many places by implication that Jesus has the name Yahweh. The Son is not Yahweh Junior, another God/god. The Son is Yahweh.
It certainly would have been easy for God to tell us that Jesus is not equal to Him and that Jesus is a created being or had a beginning, but no, God points to His Son as His equal, as Yahweh, and the Son points to the Father as the only true God. Why is the Father the only true God which Jesus also is Yahweh, because the Son has all things through and from His Father, including life, but that does not mean that this had to have a beginning.



The Father is the source of the Son. Isn't that the definition.



The Son is "Eternal Father" which can also be translated "Father of Eternity".
God has always been the Father because His Son has always been with and in Him.



The life that the Word has in himself came from the Father but the Word was not created even if the Word stepped into creation when He took on the nature of a servant and the likeness of a man. His body became His Temple but we worship the Divine in Him.

Was Jesus, in your opinion, always the Son??

 

[YoursTrue]

Son of God of Heaven and Earth & God of Heaven and Earth are not the same. One is a possesor and the other a possession. One is the owner and the other can receive an inheritance and be exhalted.

If your earthly father gives you all he has, or you inherit all he has; that does not make you him literally. One of you proocedeth forth and came from the other; not of yourself.

...
You have no proof of before the beginning only in the beginning. Seems very disingenuous when people pretend or think that they do.
Before your earthy father had his firstborn has he always been a father?

Good question.

 

[Oeste]

Let's go back to basics. Jesus was not God encapsulated in the flesh.

That would be your doctrinal basics; certainly not a basic doctrine of scripture or getting back to the basics of thread theme.

Now it gets complicated because, simply speaking, you believe there were three persons in heaven,

There are many more in heaven, but in reference to the Triune God, there are 3 persons, one God, yes.

separate and distinct from one another, don't you?

Correct

And then -- and then -- one of those persons LEFT HEAVEN and was placed in Mary's womb (flesh) to grow and become a human man. Is that true so far?

No, and this is where, as you say “Now it gets complicated” because Witnesses and Christians have a fundamentally different concept of God.

The WT envisions a God that lives within our created universe, Christianity does not. The WT God has a fixed place and lives inside of space and time whereas in Christianity (and by this I mean the mainstream, historic Church) there is no such limitation.

Let’s go back to basics.

At one time the Watchtower taught that God lived on a star called Alcyone in the Pleiades star cluster which they believed was at the center of the Universe

The Pleiades, the centre of the universe, are located in Taurus, and as though to emphasize the foundation, the original meaning of Alcyone, one of the chief stars of the Pleiades, is "foundation". How significant that the whole universe should throughout the ages swing about that constellation and that star which alone picture so clearly the Ransom! The bullock offered on the brazen altar in the court was indeed the foundation: it represented the sacrifice of the Lord. The bullock in the sky represented the very same thing. (1914 International Bible Students Convention Report, pp. 252-253)​

According to the WT, Jesus made an invisible visit to Brooklyn New York and approved your Organization in 1919. Thus, Jesus was happy with your doctrines as was the WT upon finding it was "Jesus approved". The Organization was also able to divinely channel that the WT was the sole Organization through which Jehovah would communicate with the world today, but none of these new communications, which would only be channeled to the "Faithful discreet slave" should be deemed as inspired. Correct?

Judge Rutherford, the WT president that succeeded Russel, also approved and continued the Pleiades teaching:

The constellation of the Pleiades is a small one compared with others which scientific instruments disclose to the wondering eyes of man. But the greatness in size of other stars or planets is small when compared with the Pleiades in importance, because the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God. (Reconciliation, J.F. Rutherford, p.14)​

If what the WT says was true, then it is clear that by 1953 apostasy had entered the WT. They abandoned this "Jesus-approved”, original teaching and declared the whole thing “without foundation”.

Some attribute striking qualities to these constellations or star groups and on the basis of such they then offer private interpretations of Job 38:31,32 that amaze their hearers...when viewed Scripturally they are completely without foundation. (The Watchtower 1953 November 15 p. 703)​

Of course the WT forgot to mention that the “Some” who offered “private interpretations” were none other than the WT and its past Presidents, which brings into questions why the Faithful Discreet Slave failed to faithfully communicate the divine truths God had communicated or channeled to them.

In any event, I am mentioning this because it demonstrates the finite nature of the WT's version of God. In Christianity, God is infinite.

I demonstrated these two contrasting views of God here:

As you can see, since the WT’s version of God occupies a point in space and time, he must leave one space to be at another. He is either in heaven or the womb of Mary, He is either in heaven or He’s in the arc, and when He’s here He’s not over there. This is why you can ask if the question about one person of the Trinity leaving heaven to be placed in the womb of Mary.

In the traditional Christian view such questions are meaningless. God is all-encompassing. He is everywhere. A simple glance at both illustrations shows that Christianity's view of God is infinitely more majestic than that envisioned by the Watchtower.

In my studies with Witnesses, I find they tend to envision Jehovah as an old man with a beard. In this they are in good company with how the Norse envisioned Odin, the Greeks envisioned Zeus, and how the Romans envisioned Jupiter. WT literature will often mention how loving Jehovah is, but when they actually illustrate Him I find He's generally shown destroying, devastating, or killing (either remotely or personally) in some form or the other.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus claim to be the Son of God was upsetting to the Jews in John 10. The Jews saw it as a claim to be equal to God, and they were right that Jesus was claiming that but in other places we see Jesus explaining what being the Son meant in terms of relationship. Jesus was the Son in a Father/Son relationship and His life came from His Father and He is subject to His Father even if all that the Father has belongs to Jesus and Jesus can do all things that the Father can do. But when was Jesus born? We know He was born on earth and is known as the Son of God because of that but we also know that He was the Son before that and was equal in nature to His Father before that.



That the Father created all things through His Word is seen in the OT and that this Word is His Son is seen in the NT. The Father sent His Son/Word out to create and that is what He did. God created all things through His Son. I guess it is for this reason that Rev 3:14 using "originator" has potential as a correct translation even if I see Rev 3:14 using "ruler" as a better alternative and certainly better than "beginning", meaning first thing. It has this meaning only once in John's writings. And of course if all things that came into existence came into existence through the Word it means that the Word cannot be one of those things.


All things came by the Father also, Heb 2:10, Romans 11:36. (same Greek word as "through"--dia)
The Son came as a servant, Israel, to do the will of the one who sent Him, the one who told Him what to say. The Son does nothing of His own authority. Yet there is nobody like Yahweh, who can we compare Yahweh with? The NT compares Yahweh with Jesus and says they have the same nature and the Son can do all that the Father does and has the same glory and is exactly like His Father. The NT tells us that the in many places by implication that Jesus has the name Yahweh. The Son is not Yahweh Junior, another God/god. The Son is Yahweh.
It certainly would have been easy for God to tell us that Jesus is not equal to Him and that Jesus is a created being or had a beginning, but no, God points to His Son as His equal, as Yahweh, and the Son points to the Father as the only true God. Why is the Father the only true God which Jesus also is Yahweh, because the Son has all things through and from His Father, including life, but that does not mean that this had to have a beginning.



The Father is the source of the Son. Isn't that the definition.



The Son is "Eternal Father" which can also be translated "Father of Eternity".
God has always been the Father because His Son has always been with and in Him.



The life that the Word has in himself came from the Father but the Word was not created even if the Word stepped into creation when He took on the nature of a servant and the likeness of a man. His body became His Temple but we worship the Divine in Him.

I have news for you. Eternal doesn't mean no beginning. It means no end. Furthermore for Jesus to be the eternal father means something other than his Father being eternal Father. Two fathers. Both for everlasting life in righteousness.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be your doctrinal basics; certainly not a basic doctrine of scripture or getting back to the basics of thread theme.




There are many more in heaven, but in reference to the Triune God, there are 3 persons, one God, yes.



Correct



No, and this is where, as you say “Now it gets complicated” because Witnesses and Christians have a fundamentally different concept of God.

The WT envisions a God that lives within our created universe, Christianity does not. The WT God has a fixed place and lives inside of space and time whereas in Christianity (and by this I mean the mainstream, historic Church) there is no such limitation.

Let’s go back to basics.

At one time the Watchtower taught that God lived on a star called Alcyone in the Pleiades star cluster which they believed was at the center of the Universe

The Pleiades, the centre of the universe, are located in Taurus, and as though to emphasize the foundation, the original meaning of Alcyone, one of the chief stars of the Pleiades, is "foundation". How significant that the whole universe should throughout the ages swing about that constellation and that star which alone picture so clearly the Ransom! The bullock offered on the brazen altar in the court was indeed the foundation: it represented the sacrifice of the Lord. The bullock in the sky represented the very same thing. (1914 International Bible Students Convention Report, pp. 252-253)​

According to the WT, Jesus made an invisible visit to Brooklyn New York and approved your Organization in 1919. Thus, Jesus was happy with your doctrines as was the WT upon finding it was "Jesus approved". The Organization was also able to divinely channel that the WT was the sole Organization through which Jehovah would communicate with the world today, but none of these new communications, which would only be channeled to the "Faithful discreet slave" should be deemed as inspired. Correct?

View attachment 42375

Judge Rutherford, the WT president that succeeded Russel, also approved and continued the Pleiades teaching:

The constellation of the Pleiades is a small one compared with others which scientific instruments disclose to the wondering eyes of man. But the greatness in size of other stars or planets is small when compared with the Pleiades in importance, because the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God. (Reconciliation, J.F. Rutherford, p.14)​

If what the WT says was true, then it is clear that by 1953 apostasy had entered the WT. They abandoned this "Jesus-approved”, original teaching and declared the whole thing “without foundation”.

Some attribute striking qualities to these constellations or star groups and on the basis of such they then offer private interpretations of Job 38:31,32 that amaze their hearers...when viewed Scripturally they are completely without foundation. (The Watchtower 1953 November 15 p. 703)​

Of course the WT forgot to mention that the “Some” who offered “private interpretations” were none other than the WT and its past Presidents, which brings into questions why the Faithful Discreet Slave failed to faithfully communicate the divine truths God had communicated or channeled to them.

In any event, I am mentioning this because it demonstrates the finite nature of the WT's version of God. In Christianity, God is infinite.

I demonstrated these two contrasting views of God here:

View attachment 42372

View attachment 42373

As you can see, since the WT’s version of God occupies a point in space and time, he must leave one space to be at another. He is either in heaven or the womb of Mary, He is either in heaven or He’s in the arc, and when He’s here He’s not over there. This is why you can ask if the question about one person of the Trinity leaving heaven to be placed in the womb of Mary.

In the traditional Christian view such questions are meaningless. God is all-encompassing. He is everywhere. A simple glance at both illustrations shows that Christianity's view of God is infinitely more majestic than that envisioned by the Watchtower.

In my studies with Witnesses, I find they tend to envision Jehovah as an old man with a beard. In this they are in good company with how the Norse envisioned Odin, the Greeks envisioned Zeus, and how the Romans envisioned Jupiter. WT literature will often mention how loving Jehovah is, but when they actually illustrate Him I find He's generally shown destroying, devastating, or killing (either remotely or personally) in some form or the other.

View attachment 42376​

What you say really makes no good sense. Then again, unless you're an atheist, or maybe believe in reincarnation now, figure what happened with Moses and Pharaoh. Anyway don't fret. Maybe you believe in evolution and so death is in the future regardless.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be your doctrinal basics; certainly not a basic doctrine of scripture or getting back to the basics of thread theme

There are many more in heaven, but in reference to the Triune God, there are 3 persons, one God, yes.

Always there (all three) without beginning? Ridiculous. Absolutely.

 

[Oeste]

How are you going to bear false witness, be exposed, and your excuse is "No, it's what I believe"?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Silence is Golden for a Reason.

No one is forcing you to speak Lymus. Feel free to follow this sage advice.

Outside of an apology or Correction "partial Pro 15:10 reference" why even continue to speak or reply.

You can show leadership with your silence.

The foundation of what you believe has been taken away and you are naked. But apparently even if no works or valid foundation behind it, you will continue to believe a lie. At this point you simply refuse to listen and try the spirits appropriately.

Nah, my foundation is good, and I can assure you I am not naked as I post.

You have no proof to make your belief valid or truthful. "partial Jas 2:17 & Joh 10:37 reference if can read between the lines and see the concept"

I have no idea what you mean by this. You appear to suggest that we should take James 2:17 and John 10:37 not in total, but partial and mesh them together, but you do not tell us which "partial" we should mesh or even why we should do this.

Then you tell us once we do this we "...can read between the lines and see the concept".

"Reading between the lines" for a concept may sound wise to you, but to me it sounds like a call to eisegesis.

You can ask them yourself. they are not incorrect to do so, the jews misinterpreted Christ words and were under the impression that he blasphemed the Name/Identity of the God of Heaven and Earth.

THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD.

I am glad we are agreed on this Lymus! Although I don't necessarily believe the crowd misinterpreted the words of Jesus, I did take that stance for purposes of this thread, which places us right back into a dilemma. Since, as you say, the Jews misinterpreted Jesus's words and were under the impression that he blasphemed the Name/Identity of the God of Heaven and Earth, there is simply NO WAY you can translate John 10:33 with "a god" but only as follows:

"The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.​

It's there but you are blind to it for whatever reason. Once again Joh 10:32 & Joh 10:33-37.

More eisegesis.

Once again I will remind you that, you have shown that what you believe in to be a lie. Therefore anything adverse to the lie you believe in is unacceptable to you. But of course you won't say it's a lie even with the works of your doctrine and words proving such.

Actually you've just shown you agree with my initial assertion. How you agree on this point with one post and then disagree with the same point on the very next post is beyond me.

Why would it? The Word was God. He was always God.

if that was the case you would not need to add the word always nonchalantly.

I didn't add it nonchalantly, I added it with emphasis, in italics, so you wouldn't miss it.

But this begs the question: When do you think the Word wasn't God?

Example:
Sometimes my Battalion Commander "BC" would go on leave or temporary duty and would give Assumption of Command to the Battalion Executive Officer "XO". With authority "or context" the XO was the BC; However you cannot say the XO was always the BC, when the same XO was in the beginning with the BC.

God never gave "assumption of command" to another. He is always in command.

To say the Word was always God is not only adding to John 1:1 but disregarding John 1:2

I don't see how. The Word was God. God doesn't change. He always remains God. Neither John 1:1 or 1:2 tells me anything different.

This should be my final post here. I already addressed the OP and it seems silence may have finally become golden for him. Tired of seeing the unnecessary back and forth but perhaps my opinion shouldn't matter and i can always unwatch the thread

Context. God is God. God has been God. never was.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)​

I'm not sure which translation you are using, but the above quote should tell us all we need to know. BTW, your statement "God has been God. never was" completely contradicts itself. If God "has been" then He "was".

For example, if I tell you "Sammy 'has been' at the store" there's no way I can tell you he 'never was' at that same store.

 

[Iymus]

Last post on this matter.

1Jn 5:1 KJV Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1Jn 5:3 KJV For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Num 23:19 KJV God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Act 10:37 KJV That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Act 10:38 KJV How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Act 17:30 KJV And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 KJV Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Joh 7:17 KJV If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Rev 3:12 KJV Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.




Order of Operations / Foundation / Expedience

 

[Oeste]

I have news for you. Eternal doesn't mean no beginning. It means no end. Furthermore for Jesus to be the eternal father means something other than his Father being eternal Father. Two fathers. Both for everlasting life in righteousness.

That would be fake news.

Eternal means no beginning and no end.

Everlasting doesn't mean no beginning, but it does means no end.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be your doctrinal basics; certainly not a basic doctrine of scripture or getting back to the basics of thread theme.




There are many more in heaven, but in reference to the Triune God, there are 3 persons, one God, yes.



Correct



No, and this is where, as you say “Now it gets complicated” because Witnesses and Christians have a fundamentally different concept of God.

The WT envisions a God that lives within our created universe, Christianity does not. The WT God has a fixed place and lives inside of space and time whereas in Christianity (and by this I mean the mainstream, historic Church) there is no such limitation.

Let’s go back to basics.

At one time the Watchtower taught that God lived on a star called Alcyone in the Pleiades star cluster which they believed was at the center of the Universe

The Pleiades, the centre of the universe, are located in Taurus, and as though to emphasize the foundation, the original meaning of Alcyone, one of the chief stars of the Pleiades, is "foundation". How significant that the whole universe should throughout the ages swing about that constellation and that star which alone picture so clearly the Ransom! The bullock offered on the brazen altar in the court was indeed the foundation: it represented the sacrifice of the Lord. The bullock in the sky represented the very same thing. (1914 International Bible Students Convention Report, pp. 252-253)​

According to the WT, Jesus made an invisible visit to Brooklyn New York and approved your Organization in 1919. Thus, Jesus was happy with your doctrines as was the WT upon finding it was "Jesus approved". The Organization was also able to divinely channel that the WT was the sole Organization through which Jehovah would communicate with the world today, but none of these new communications, which would only be channeled to the "Faithful discreet slave" should be deemed as inspired. Correct?

View attachment 42375

Judge Rutherford, the WT president that succeeded Russel, also approved and continued the Pleiades teaching:

The constellation of the Pleiades is a small one compared with others which scientific instruments disclose to the wondering eyes of man. But the greatness in size of other stars or planets is small when compared with the Pleiades in importance, because the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God. (Reconciliation, J.F. Rutherford, p.14)​

If what the WT says was true, then it is clear that by 1953 apostasy had entered the WT. They abandoned this "Jesus-approved”, original teaching and declared the whole thing “without foundation”.

Some attribute striking qualities to these constellations or star groups and on the basis of such they then offer private interpretations of Job 38:31,32 that amaze their hearers...when viewed Scripturally they are completely without foundation. (The Watchtower 1953 November 15 p. 703)​

Of course the WT forgot to mention that the “Some” who offered “private interpretations” were none other than the WT and its past Presidents, which brings into questions why the Faithful Discreet Slave failed to faithfully communicate the divine truths God had communicated or channeled to them.

In any event, I am mentioning this because it demonstrates the finite nature of the WT's version of God. In Christianity, God is infinite.

I demonstrated these two contrasting views of God here:

View attachment 42372

View attachment 42373

As you can see, since the WT’s version of God occupies a point in space and time, he must leave one space to be at another. He is either in heaven or the womb of Mary, He is either in heaven or He’s in the arc, and when He’s here He’s not over there. This is why you can ask if the question about one person of the Trinity leaving heaven to be placed in the womb of Mary.

In the traditional Christian view such questions are meaningless. God is all-encompassing. He is everywhere. A simple glance at both illustrations shows that Christianity's view of God is infinitely more majestic than that envisioned by the Watchtower.

In my studies with Witnesses, I find they tend to envision Jehovah as an old man with a beard. In this they are in good company with how the Norse envisioned Odin, the Greeks envisioned Zeus, and how the Romans envisioned Jupiter. WT literature will often mention how loving Jehovah is, but when they actually illustrate Him I find He's generally shown destroying, devastating, or killing (either remotely or personally) in some form or the other.

View attachment 42376​

That would be fake news.

Eternal means no beginning and no end.

Everlasting doesn't mean no beginning, but it does means no end.

Nope, not every definition says eternal means no beginning and no end. Furthermore, let's see how you figure eternal life for those that gain it.
New International Version
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
So some go to eternal what? eternal punishment. And others go to eternal life. Want to say how they were always "eternally punished" or "eternally alive"??????????? Please --

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be fake news.

Eternal means no beginning and no end.

Everlasting doesn't mean no beginning, but it does means no end.

Oh? Everlasting is a synonym for eternal. Where are you getting your definitions from? John Calvin?

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be fake news.

Eternal means no beginning and no end.

Sorry, but you're wrong. And of course I doubt you'll admit it. But -- let's see if you can from the scriptures, a good place to start, is that right?

Everlasting doesn't mean no beginning, but it does means no end.

Yes, everlasting certainly can mean "no begiinning." How about the following? Want to tell us how this means no start for those saved, or -- brought by Jesus to -- ETERNAL LIFE?? Please do say. And thank you very much in advance, glad to hear.

Jude 1:21 - New International Version
keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

I'll enjoy hearing your explanation. Because next we'll hear there's just no way out -- doomed or saved from before you were born, is that right? Way before you were born --

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be fake news.

Eternal means no beginning and no end.

Everlasting doesn't mean no beginning, but it does means no end.

Hmm, let's see a little more there.
Titus 3:7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become
heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Oh, having the HOPE of eternal life.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be fake news.

Eternal means no beginning and no end.

Everlasting doesn't mean no beginning, but it does means no end.

Let's see if you think there's no beginning to the following:
John 17:2
For you granted him authority over all people that he might give
eternal life to all those you have given him.

So much in that sentence, isn't there? Not only did God grant the Son authority -- (imagine that) but the Son can give what?? ETERNAL LIFE to all those that GOD the FATHER GAVE THE SON. What a mind-opener. The Son can give ETERNAL LIFE to those that GOD gave him. Want to say they had eternal life when they were born? Come on, let us know it's all fixed from no beginning, ok? And so much for equals.