Peacefullove:



LMAO! Jesus referring to his Father is greater is only in Position Lol

okay . that means In position, Father is greater than son , Now who is greater between Son and Holy spirit ?

Waiting for answers on this one...

Ghen! Ghen!

lovingJehovah:
Yes, I am a full timer and with all due respect, your aggression is unworthy. I didn't insult you or incite hatred toward Islam. All I did was ask you questions about the religion that you put your faith in and claim to be the only true religion above mine. You said that mine is man made. So, I am curious to get the answers from you. There must be reasons why yours is the religion from God as you said. I accept to be ignorant to Islam so edify me by answering my questions.
Listen, I know the art of pivoting so do not dodge my questions by using sentimental slurs.
We will have a private chat for sure but for the interest of having a closure on the issue that you raised on this thread, kindly respond to my questions.
I will repost them here to make it easy for you.
QUESTIONS

If your koran is truly a book from God and brought to Mohammed by angel Jibril (Gabriel), when does it say that the world would end?
What prophecies in the koran has achieved notable and accurate fulfilment?
Does the koran give historical names of notable people in history that scientists or archaeologists have been able to reconcile? If yes, give us reference please.
The Bible that you critic contains detail in history that we find useful and staggering. I will like to see such in the koran for example, do you believe in the hanging garden of Babylon? Do you believe that there was someone called sennacherib in history?
What does Jerusalem mean to Islam?
Compare Jerusalem and Mecca in Islam.
What is the koran, a book of the law, a history book, a book of God, a book of the angel or a book of the prophet?

In what language was the 10 commandments given to Musa written?
If it wasn't Arabic, why was the koran then written in Arabic?
What is the language of the Angels since angel Jibril spoke Arabic to Mohammed?
How logical is it to have a book written in a strange language, recited by adults who cannot understand that language, and yet claim that their faiths are in that book?
When was the Koran first translated?
In what language were you taught the koran?
Are you an Arab?
If you believe in Musa(Moses), what was the name that Musa called his God and in what language?
What historical trace links you to the God of Musa?
If Islam was so pure, why are all Islamic states failing?
If the God of Islam is true, why wasn't he able to defeat the God of the Jews?
In what way was Musa given the 10 Commandments and in what way did Mohammed receive his message?
Why the confusing method of communication? Could it have been different God's?
Allah is a title (God), what, then, is the true name of Allah? (Reconcile it with the name Musa called his God and provide evidence)
When was the first pronouncement of the word 'Allah'?
Before your mysterious visitation of Mohammed by the angel, what god did Mohammed worship? In what book did he find the law of his god? And what is that book called?
Why is Mohammed more popular than Musa or Ibrahim?
Why is Mohammed's book given superior consideration than Musa' book?
Why is sex and virginity the highest reward to Muslim heroes?
If you believe in Isa(Jesus) as a messenger as your koran says, where are the messages that he preached written?
If God could send Jibril to write a book, why then did he send so many messengers?
If your god is the truth, why do you face the east? Does he live in the Sun?
If you worship the same God as Musa, did he face the east to pray?
What relationship does the worship of God have with the moon?
Did Musa observe the moon?
If Islam is truly the best religion, why isn't Saudi Arabia your holy land taking in Muslim refugees?
Why did 3 Islamic states lose to Israel in the 60ies n 70ies?
Why have Muslims taken up guns and bombs when your prophet says sword?
Why are you socialising with the infidels on this thread, have you come with the motive to cut the neck?
Why are Muslims still puppets to the west?

Olamkas come and answer these questions I take Allah beg you.

Meanwhile let me sit on this mat, while I enjoy some date palm fruit.

lovingJehovah:
I will be patient. Take your time. Let me bring it forward for reference.

When did Jesus become God, when he was on earth or when he returned to heaven?
If it was here on earth why didn't he know the date and hour as he was asked? Mark 13:32
If it was in heaven, then why did he say he and his father were one when he was in his human form?
Is God in human form?
Did Jesus die for 3 days?
When he died, did the father die as well?
Who resurrected him?
In what form was he resurrected?
Why was he called a son?
Explain the word 'son' in divine terms.
Can you explain the chemistry involved in how Jesus became human?
When he was in Mary's womb, who was God for that 9 months and also during his childhood and teen years?
Was Jesus sent to the earth or did he send himself?
What is the name that Moses called his God in the Hebrew language?
What is the meaning of that name?
What is the meaning of the name, Jesus?
What is the meaning of God?
Differentiate between Mighty and Almighty.
In what way did God help you to understand the doctrines? How did the help come exactly?

1) I can't settle your word "become" since no one becomes God ... Now since it's evident from Hebrew 1:10 that he has been God from the beginning for if he had laid the foundations of the world from the beginning he must have been before that so since he is before beginning
Then I'm directing a question to you when was the statement in Isaiah 9:6 made it's evident that this statement wasn't made in itself from the beginning . When we agree about when that prophecy was made and when and when he made the heavens and the earth then it will be obvious "when he become God" not that he became God I was just putting it in your words

2) IT OBVIOUS that his essence never changed is the eternal word of God if we look at the prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 we see that it's a prophecy about the Messiah (man Christ) yet the prophecy reads "mighty God" so it was evident that the man Jesus was (is) mighty God (my question to you is if he was called mighty God and God is Almighty does that mean we have 2 God's or JUST RELATE MIGHTY GOD AND ALMIGHTY GOD that means that the Messiah never stopped being God ..
.
On mark 13;32 Basically we know that Christ knows all things e.g

John 16:30
"Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God."

John 21:17
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.


Isaiah 11:2
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

And also the husband issue with the woman at the well but then how do we reconcile Mark with these verses """Verse 32. Neither the Son] This clause is not found either in Matthew or Luke;. To me it is utterly unaccountable, how Jesus, who knew so correctly all the particulars which he here lays down, and which were to a jot and tittle verified by the event - how he who knew that not one stone should be left on another, should be ignorant of the day and hour when this should be done, though Daniel, Da 9:24, c., could fix the very year, not less than five hundred years before it happened: how he in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, should not know this small matter, I cannot comprehend, but on this ground, that the Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus might, at one time, communicate less of the knowledge of futurity to him than at another. However, I strongly suspect that the clause was not originally in this Gospel. Its not being found in the parallel places in the other evangelists is, in my opinion, a strong presumption against it. But Dr. Macknight, and others, solve this difficulty in the following manner. They suppose the verb οιδεν to have the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphel, in which verbs are taken in a causative, declarative, or permissive sense and that it means here, make known, or promulge, as it is to be understood in 1Co 2:2. This intimates that this secret was not to be made known, either by men or angels, no, not even by the Son of man himself; but it should be made known by the Father only, in the execution of the purposes of his justice. I am afraid this only cuts the knot, but does not untie it...... So if it's about growing in knowledge of it as man he didn't know ....

You can also resolve it please I'd appreciate your view or is it that he doesn't know all things

3) DID JESUS DIE FOR 3 DAYS
Yes he was dead for three days from human point of view (sincerely I don't understand your question you can paraphrase .... What I understand it to be is" WAS HE DORMANT""

4) WHEN HE DIED DID THE FATHER DIE AS WELL

WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER IS NO ..... TO ME THE QUESTION IS TOO COMPLEX OR it's NOT NEEDED

BECAUSE even JESUS when he was dead in the body WAS STILL VERY ACTIVE IN SPIRIT


Jesus’ body, not His spirit, died and was buried later in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38-42).It was His body that was stabbed with a spear. It was His hands and feet that were nailed to the cross and bleeding. It was His back that was raw and bleeding because of the Roman whip. His head was also bleeding because of the thorns that had been shaped into a crown and pushed down onto His head. It was His body that died and not His spirit.
The scripture reveals that we have a body and a spirit. It tells us that our bodies are dead without a spirit.
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (NASB) James 2:26
Therefore, when Jesus gave up His spirit on the cross, His body died, but not His spirit. It was still alive. In fact, the following two passages tell us what Jesus was doing while Jesus’ body was dead between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

Therefore it says, “WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.” (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) (NASB) Eph. 4:8-10

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (NASB) 1 Pet. 3:18-20
Besides you can't preach to unconscious being s

5) WHO RESURRECTED HIM?

OF COURSE THE FATHER ,,,,""All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.""""

In Acts 2:24, Peter says that “God raised [Jesus] from the dead” (see also Romans 8:11 and 2 Corinthians 4:14).

. And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So who exactly resurrected Jesus from the dead? Was it the Father, the Son.

The basic answer is that “God has raised . . . Jesus to life” (Acts 2:32). The Father is God, and the Father raised His Son to life on the third day after the crucifixion (Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 13:4). The Spirit is also God, and the Spirit had a part in raising Jesus from the dead. The Son is also God, and the Son, too, was responsible for His own resurrection.

How can a dead man resurrect himself? [/b]Jesus was more than a man who died; Wicked men could kill His body, but they could not change His eternal nature or diminish His divine power. [b]In John 10:17–18 Jesus says something that no mere mortal could ever say: “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.” No one else in the history of the world has ever had the authority both to lay down his life and raise it up again.

Furthermore, Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). He did not say, “My Father is the resurrection.” He claimed to be the resurrection Himself; life resides with Jesus, and He has absolute authority over life and death Jesus is God (some jw agree the issue here with them is MIGHTY OR ALMIGHTY) He could say He would raise up His body on the third day because He is part of the One Being of God.

Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did,

IN WHAT FORM WAS HE RESSURECTED

Jesus did rise from the dead in the same body he died in. Instead, it false that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore dont deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!
1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time; and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity
but what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."
It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead:
"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
John 2:19-21 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Note that He said He would raise up "this temple." John the apostle clarifies for us that "this temple" was actually Jesus' physical body. Therefore, Jesus' physical body was raised from the dead. Very simple. However,I WANT YOU to believe Jesus' own words here.
Re examining ;;;
1 Pet. 3:18 where it says that Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" an attempt to show that Jesus was not raised physically but as a kind of spirit creature.
It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body. This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" - a life-giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is said the same of Jesus.
2.also The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:44-50).
What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that after His resurrection Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have," (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus' blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood, and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul," (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.

3. The Jehovah's Witnesses (please note that I hold no grudges ) teach that Jesus manifested different physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been raised.
This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been raised when it hadn't. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised. He said in John 2:19-21, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body." Jesus said that His body would be raised.
. Fourth, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man--in present-tense language. If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man? He could not be.

JW also believe. Jesus manifested different bodies after the resurrection--the same way the angels took human form in the Old Testament in order to show the disciples that He had been raised.
Again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead . . . physically.
. Jesus was God in flesh (John 8:58; John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body He died in. ...because it is denying His physical resurrection which is the proof that He conquered death. The Jehovah's Witnesses need to keep Jesus' own words in mind when He said, "Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up." (John 2:19). Since He was speaking of His body says John in verse 21, then it must be true; Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Also, at His ascension people watched Him rise to be with the Father. They saw His body ascend. That is why it can be said that Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and man. (1 Tim. 2:5). It isn't an angel or a spirit creature that is the mediator. It is Jesus the man.

WHY WAS HE CALLED SON

Because he was SON who learned obedience through things he suffered

EXPLAIN SON IN DIVINE TERMS?

Before I go into this let me talk about the Trinity

Before we can adequately defend the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ, we must have an accurate understanding of what the Trinity is and what it is not.
The Trinity is the view that the three persons mentioned in the Bible: Father, Son (i.e., Jesus) and Holy Spirit are one God. This Triune God is called “Jehovah” in the Old Testament and “Lord” in the New Testament God is ELOHIM IN OLD TESTAMENT AND THEOS IN NEW TESTAMENT. Each person of the Godhead is distinct in His Personhood, yet each is equal in nature and eternal in uncreated substance[b]. Together as the one and only true God, they co-exist, co-create and co-rule this present world. [/b]There is a functional hierarchy that exists within the members of this Triune God. The Father, being the supreme person in authority, sends His “Son” Jesus Christ to redeem mankind, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit to indwell Christian believers. During the incarnation (Christ’s coming to earth), Jesus added a human nature to His Divine person. Thus, it was when He operated under the limitations of His humanity that He was unable to do things that He would otherwise have been able to do as God.
[b]Misconceptions[/b] regarding the Trinity doctrine occur when the doctrine is misdefined in Modalistic or Tritheistic terms. Modalism is the view that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit operate not only as one God, but as one person manifesting Himself in various modes at different times and places. In this view, the person of God may appear as the Father. At other times, He appears as the Son and then again as the Holy Spirit, but always as one person. The problem with this view is that if God is only “one person,” He would be unable to manifest as Father, Son and Holy Spirit at one time. Thus, we would have to discount Scriptural passages such as Matthew 3:16 where at the baptism of Jesus, all three persons manifested Themselves, and Genesis 1:26 where God refers to Himself in the plural pronouns of “Us” and “Our.”
Tritheism is the direct opposite of Modalism. It teaches that the three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are not only distinct in their Personhoods, but are separate “Gods.” In the third and fourth centuries, the Church soundly defeated this view in favor of the clear teaching of Scripture that there is only one true God (John 17:3).
Thus, this single Being we call the Triune God came to be defined as three distinct Persons in one substance. During the fourth century, in an attempt to prevent Modalistic and Tritheistic views of God from being promulgated in Christian Churches, this belief was codified into the Creed of Athanasius. Throughout the centuries, the Athanasian Creed has served as the accepted standard by which Christians define the Trinity doctrine. Today, when witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is often necessary to appeal to this creed in order to counter the Modalistic views of the Trinity presented in Watchtower literature.
.
Also
I believe Jesus is God, but I DO NOT believe Jesus is the Father

lovingJehovah:
I will be patient. Take your time. Let me bring the questions forward for reference.
QUESTIONS

When did Jesus become God, when he was on earth or when he returned to heaven?
If it was here on earth why didn't he know the date and hour as he was asked? Mark 13:32
If it was in heaven, then why did he say he and his father were one when he was in his human form?
Is God in human form?
Did Jesus die for 3 days?
When he died, did the father die as well?
Who resurrected him?
In what form was he resurrected?
Why was he called a son?
Explain the word 'son' in divine terms.
Can you explain the chemistry involved in how Jesus became human?
When he was in Mary's womb, who was God for that 9 months and also during his childhood and teen years?
Was Jesus sent to the earth or did he send himself?
What is the name that Moses called his God in the Hebrew language?
What is the meaning of that name?
What is the meaning of the name, Jesus?
What is the meaning of God?
Differentiate between Mighty and Almighty.
In what way did God help you to understand the doctrines? How did the help come exactly?

continued


b]Pointing to the fact that the angels are called “sons of God” at Job 38:7, [/b]a Jehovah’s Witness may object to your conclusions by saying that Jesus was claiming to be an angel, rather than God Himself. To this objection, read Hebrews 1:5 , “For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’? And again: ‘I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son’?” Then ,I ask the Jehovah’s Witness the following questions:
Since the Bible does not contradict itself, why does Hebrews 1:5 say that God never said, “You are My Son” to any of His angels?
Doesn’t this mean that Jesus is called the “Son of God” in a different sense than angels are called God’s sons?
What does the Bible mean when it says that Jesus is the “Son of Man” at Matthew 26:64?
Since God is not a man (Hosea 11:9), could it be that Jesus is the “Son of Man” because He possesses the nature of man, being fully human?
Since Jesus is called the “Son of Man” because He is 100% man, what do you think Scripture means when it calls Jesus the “Son of God”? He must be 100% God, right?

Common objections Jehovah’s Witnesses raise against the belief that Jesus is God are the facts that no human has seen God (John 1:18), but Jesus was seen (John 1:14);God cannot die (Habakkuk 1:12), but Jesus died (Philippians 2:; God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), but Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1); God knows all things (1 John 3:20), but Jesus did not know the day or hour of His return (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). To answer these objections, explain to the Jehovah’s Witness that because God in His very nature cannot be seen, tempted, nor physically die to pay for the sins of mankind, it was necessary for Jesus to add a human nature to His Divine person so that He could redeem mankind. Philippians 2:5-10 explains how Jesus continued to exist in God’s “form” (i.e., nature), but relinquished His right to enjoy equality with God so that He could limit Himself to the human nature he had adopted in order to redeem mankind. Thus, by adding a human dimension to His Divine person, Jesus became the visible “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). The following chart illustrates how Jesus limited Himself to the finiteness of His human nature at certain times, but expressed the God-attributes of His Divine nature at others:
DIVINE QUALITIES;
HUMAN QUALITIES
OMNIPOTENCE (All Power): Mark 2:7-12; 14:62-64; John 2:7-11
HUNGER & WEARINESS: Luke 4:2; John 4:6; Matthew 8:24
OMNIPRESENCE (Present Everywhere): John 1:48; Matt. 18:20; 28:20
LIMITED PHYSICAL BODY: Mark 3:9; John 11:32
OMNISCIENCE (All Knowledge): John 2:24-25; 6:64; 16:30
LIMITED KNOWLEDGE: Mark 13:32; John 11:34

Some struggle with the concept that Jesus can submit His will to the will of the Father and yet remain “equal” in nature to the Father. They may also question how Jesus can be “equal” to God, yet proclaim at John 14:28 that the Father is “greater” than Him. Here again, our human analogy comes into play to explain how this is the case. Ask the Jehovah’s Witness:
In God’s design for the family, doesn’t the human father hold the greatest authority within the family? Although the father may share his authority with the mother, would you not you agree that he is in a “greater” position than anyone else in the family and is the ultimate one in charge?

Does the fact that the human father is in a “greater” position of authority than anyone else in the family prove that his wife or his son or daughter is inherently inferior to him? If so, are we to argue that they are less human than their father is simply because they submit to his “greater” authority and obey his rules and guidelines?
Then, why argue that Jesus is inferior to God simply because He submits His will to the Father? At Luke 2:51, we read that Jesus “continued in subjection” to Mary and Joseph. Does this mean that Jesus was inferior to them?

So when we are talking of son of God its different in scope and meaning with the general sons of God although each of the sons can be referred to as individual son of God ...... But not like the only son

THE CHEMISTRY OF HOW JESUS BECAME HUMAN?

WE KNOW NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD

I think other questions have been answered in the posts if you need me to enumerate .... I'll do that

MOSES CALLED HIS GOD JEHOVAH

JESUS MEANS "Savior." It is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament. It is given to our Lord because "He saves His people from their sins." This is His special role. He saves them from the guilt of sin, by cleansing them in His own atoning blood. He saves them from the dominion of sin by putting in their hearts the sanctifying Spirit. He saves them from the presence of sin, when He takes them out of this world to rest with Him. He will save them from all the consequences of sin, when He shall give them a glorious body at the last day.

It means JEHOVAH SAVES



ABOUT HOW I WAS HELPED!!!.
Its true Providence I believe when we pray and trust God he answers us ..
. its true Providence by helping get to know about the Greek words ... Not allowing me hold church doctrines but Bible doctrines etc ... Even being alive


.sorry the answers came late ... May God keep helping us....

Ferisidowu:
if you call those words shallow ... I wonder if you would call the Bible shallow I can't argue with one who doesn't agree with the source or words of the Bible
....


and for others I'm working on the answer of your questions

lest I forget
.. the reason why I'm in the first place arguing this with you is because am a Christian .... why am I a Christian ,,?? because I admit am a sinner and needs to be saved ..... now I affirm that" this argument " is not a prerequisite to my being saved or salvation if it were I need not be a Christian .....

I'm working on the answers of others who want to give me hearing even if I may be wrong to them I attacked no one don't attack me pls calm down and post your questions reasonably .....

I will repost , I just need you to clarify


According to King James Bible , Revelation 3:14 said Jesus is the beginning of the Creation of God . No more no less, this spell it out that he was Created

You admit this knowing the Wording indicates he was created, So you proceed in other to show or defend that beginning is not correct in your own view , You said the word arche can also mean Origin or source, Therefore you believe it should read:

the Source of the Creation by God , Right ? I think I get your point.

BUT I need to ask : Is Jesus the source of creation ?

Kindly answer these, its very vital to unravelling which is correct between Beginning of Creation And source of Creation at Rev 3 vs 14 .

SAVIOURJESUS:
if you believe he his the son of God why do you still attack his divinity as God. If my father is a human then will I then be an animal? If Jesus father is God what does that make Jesus? Can u see you deny that Jesus is the son of God, but you are lead by the Spirit of error.
Truth may seem harsh but it is the truth you guys are liars and antichrist(against Christ).

Angels are also called Sons of God, do you believe they Are God ?

Peacefullove:


I asked a question, If Jesus was not created .. tell me why he is called Son of God, a title given to created angels and Created humans ?

Why is his father Never called Son of God too ? does his been called Son of God not proof he was created ?

cc Ferisidowu

Reconcile heb 2:10 and rev 4:11

Reconcile mighty God and Almighty God I'd appreciate your doing that....

John 1:3 shows he made all things and affirm that without him nothing was made THAT WAS MADE

YOU CAN READ THAT REV 3:14 IN AMPLIFIED BIBLE IF YOU WANT ....

YET MY POST BELOW IS TRUTHFUL

Peacefullove:


I will repost , I just need you to clarify


According to King James Bible , Revelation 3:14 said Jesus is the beginning of the Creation of God . No more no less, this spell it out that he was Created

You admit this knowing the Wording indicates he was created, So you proceed in other to show or defend that beginning is not correct in your own view [b], You said the word arche can also mean Origin or source, Therefore you believe it should read:

the Source of the Creation by God , Right ? I think I get your point.

BUT I need to ask : Is Jesus the source of creation ? [/b]

Kindly answer these, its very vital to unravelling which is correct between Beginning of Creation And source of Creation at Rev 3 vs 14 .

alright no problems although you made it seem like I brought propaganda or I changed it to fit my theology .... No it the true doctrine

I explain again


Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is not Jehovah God. Only the Father is Jehovah God. Concurring that Logos, was “existing in God’s form”(Philippians 5:5-11) the Society expounded its Christology as follows,

He [prehumen Jesus] was a spirit person, just as “God is a Spirit”; he was a mighty one ([color=#006600]hmmm one or mighty God You answer that )although not almighty as Jehovah God is; also he was before all others of God’s creatures, for he was the first son that Jehovah God brought forth. Hence he is called “the only begotten Son” of God, for God had no partner in bringing forth his first-begotten Son. He was the first of Jehovah God’s creations. He speaks so of himself, at Revelation (or Apocalypse) 3:14: “These are the things the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.” (NWT) (Watchtower 1952, 32)[/color]

Is it true that prehumen Jesus being “the beginning of the creation by God”(NW emp. added) means that He was the first of Jehovah God’s creations? This post aimed to show that the Society is not warranted in reading their presupposed theology into Revelation 3:14.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the word “beginning” (Gk. αρχη, G794 archē) in Revelation 3:14 η αρχη της κτισεως του Θεου (the beginning of the creation of God) indicate that prehumen Jesus was brought forth as the first of Jehovah God’s (who is the Father) invisible creations.

Archē, contended the Society, “cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the ‘beginner’ of God’s creation.”(1989, 14) John is said to have used various forms of archē, “more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning.”” Is this true?

John used archē synonymously with alpha(G1) and prōtos (first Gk. πρῶτος G4413) in Revelation 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning[archē] and the end”(ESV) as titles applied to God. Josephus also applied archē to God when he wrote,

The first command is concerning God, and affirms that God contains all things, and is a being every way perfect and happy, self-sufficient, and supplying all other beings; the beginning [ἀρχή], the middle, and the end of all things (Against Apion 2.190)

Josephus viewed God as the beginning of all things. Unquestionably [b]he did not understood archē to mean that God had a beginning. In this sense, it is possible, contrary to the Society, to rightly translate archē ho theos ho ktisis in Revelation 3:14 as ruler or authority of creation of God (cf Luke 20:20 1 Co. 15:24) Following this path is HCSB translating Originator of God’s creation and NIV, the ruler of God’s creation.

Though it is possible to translate Jesus as ruler or origin of God’s creation, it is more plausible that John used archē as beginning in sense of time, but not as the Society supposed, namely the beginning of the original creation, but the new creation. Revelation 3:14 read with 1:15’s πρωτότοκος (firstborn) and ἄρχων (ruler) in view, viz., Jesus is “the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth”(ESV emp. added) indicate that Jesus is the beginning of the new heaven and new earth.

Furthermore prehumen Jesus cannot be the first of Jehovah God’s creations in the sense that He was created because He claimed the title of eternality, the first and the last. (Rev. 1:17 cf. Isa. 44:6; 48:12)[/b]

The Society, thus, is not warranted to read their theology of a created prehumen Jesus into Revelation 3:14, since as Josephus, the beginning of the creation does not necessarily convey the meaning of beginning to exist, but lordship and that Revelation 3:14 is plausibly understood as beginning of the new creation.





To the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God," (Revelation 3:14, New World Translation).
The Jehovah's Witnesses point to this verse to deny the deity of Christ. They claim that if Jesus is the "beginning" of the creation of God, that must mean that He is part of that creation. They teach that this verse upholds their view that Jesus is the first creation,
. A more careful reading with proper attention to the greater context, however, actually exposes that this verse does the opposite. It actually points to the deity of Jesus and His eternal unity and equality with the Father.
Beginning
The Greek word translated "beginning" here is the word "arche." Arche certainly can mean "beginning" as in "the first in series,"
1 which is how the Jehovah's Witness understands it here. But it can also mean "beginning" in the sense of the "origin" or "source" of a thing,
2 It even can mean "ruler" or "authority,"
3 from which we get words like "archbishop", "archangel", or "arch enemy." In Greek philosophy
, the "arche" was the eternal absolute from which all created things are derived,
4 from which we get words like "archetype". So it is not enough merely to note that Jesus IS the "beginning of the creation of God." We have to ask in what sense is Jesus the "arche" of creation? How is He using the word here?
In the immediate context of the verse, Jesus is addressing the church at Laodicea. He is not merely stating random facts about Himself but is reinforcing the authority of His words. The term "amen" is a strong affirmation of the truthfulness of a statement.
5 When Jesus calls Himself "the amen," He is saying that His own identity is the ultimate affirmation of truth. Who He is proves the truthfulness of what He says. This is reinforced by the second title He gives Himself here, "the faithful and true witness." The context is emphasizing Jesus' authority and identity as the arbiter of truth. When He gives the third title, that He is the "arche" of creation, it seems highly unlikely that the sense intended here is merely "God made me before He made you. I come first on a timeline." If Jesus is the source of everything that is or the ruler of everything that is, that furthers His point. Stating that He is one of the things that God created and comes first in chronological order doesn't do anything to establish His authority or the truthfulness of His testimony. The statement would simply be out of place. Translators have long realized this, as a brief survey below helps illustrate.
The 1599 Geneva Bible translates it "beginning of the creatures of God." The translators add an explanatory note to clarify the sense they mean: "Of whom all things that are made have their beginning."
The NASB translates it "the beginning of the creation of God," also clarifying in a footnote: "I.e. Origin or Source"
HCSB, NET, and the Messianic Jewish "Tree of Life Version" all render it - "the originator of God's creation"
The NRSV similarly translates it - "the Origin of God's creation"
The NIV renders it - "the Ruler of God's creation"
The Young's Literal Translation similarly translates - "the Chief of the creation of God"
The Living Bible offers the interpretation - "the primeval source of God's creation."
From the earliest English translators to the best scholars of today and many in between, the context clearly demands that we understand Jesus to be the "beginning" in the sense of the origin or source of creation; the one who has authority over all things because He made and sustains them all. In this sense, Jesus' claim to be the "beginning" greatly established the authority of His words and the trustworthiness of His promises and judgments about to be given.
The Greater Context

The Book of Revelation uses the title of "the Beginning" in a few other places, so it is important to note how the rest of the book fleshes out the meaning. God Himself is called the beginning, and no Jehovah's Witness would dare claim that this implies that Jehovah is a created being:
"And the One seated on the throne said: Look! I am making all things new. Also he says: Write, for these words are faithful and true. And he said to me: They have come to pass! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the spring of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son," (Revelation 21:5-7, NWT)
This is the one on the throne who will be the God and Father of those who inherit eternal life. It's safe to say that we are talking about Jehovah God here, and He calls Himself the beginning [arche]. It echoes what was said at the beginning of the book:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says Jehovah God, the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty," (Revelation 1:8, NWT).
God the Father, however, is not the only one to say this in the book of Revelation. Jesus declares in the last chapter:
"Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to repay each one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who wash their robes, so that they may have authority to go to the trees of life and that they may gain entrance into the city through its gates. Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and those who are sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying. I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star," (Revelation 22:12-16, NWT)
[b]So Jesus is the beginning in the very same sense that the Father is the beginning. This obviously does not imply being a part of creation. And there are not two beginnings of creation, nor two ends. There are not two alphas, two omegas, two firsts, and two lasts. If God and a created being could both separately be called by these exact same titles in the exact same context in the exact same book, the titles become completely meaningless. Far from denying Jesus divinity, the title of "the beginning" in Revelation actually affirms it!

Additional Evidence

It should also be briefly observed that the Book of Revelation frequently points to the Trinitarian understanding that Jesus and the Father are distinct persons but are one and the same God. That the author distinguishes between Jesus and the Father is clear and not in dispute. But look at how he also identifies them.
The final chapter of revelation clearly shows the one true God of the Old Testament is the one who sent the angel who revealed these things, and that it is His angel:
"He said to me: 'These words are faithful and true; yes, Jehovah, the God who inspired the prophets, has sent his angel to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place,'" (Revelation 22:6. NWT).
In the very same chapter, however, Jesus claims to be the one who sent the angel and the one whose angel it is:
"I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star," (Revelation 22:16, NWT)
The same chapter also speaks of a single throne of "God and of the Lamb." The slaves and servants of the one on this thrown offer Him sacred service (worship) and have his name on their foreheads:
"And there will no longer be any curse. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his slaves will offer him sacred service; and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads," (Revelation 22:3-4. NWT).
Who is the one on the throne? God. It is God's throne, and throughout the book He is upon it. But interestingly, it is also the throne of the Lamb and it is the Lamb sitting on the throne.
"That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down on them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them and will guide them to springs of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes," (Revelation 7:15-17, NWT).
So God is the one on the throne, and the Lamb is the one on the throne, and there is no contradiction. Further, whose name is on their foreheads? The name of both God the Father and the Lamb!
"Then I saw, and look! the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who have his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads," (Revelation 14:1, NWT)
There is one and only one eternal and almighty God. He is the beginning and the end. He sits on the throne. Both the Father and the Lamb are the beginning and the end and sit on the throne. Both the Father and the Lamb are Jehovah, the one true God. This is perfectly consistent with the biblical teaching . The book of Revelation is a beautiful testimony to who Jesus is. He is the one with whom creation began. He is not a creation but the creator.[/b]

Peacefullove:


cc Ferisidowu

This shows you weren't reading my posts ..(at least the ones I posted recently ).. Read it. the answer is there let me help a little by pasting some of the answers here .........read my posts for full answers

. for full answers

Read what I posted the answers earlier .....





Pointing to the fact that the angels are called “sons of God” at Job 38:7, [/b]a Jehovah’s Witness may object to your conclusions by saying that Jesus was claiming to be an angel, rather than God Himself. To this objection, read Hebrews 1:5 , “For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’? And again: ‘I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son’?” Then ,I ask the Jehovah’s Witness the following questions:
Since the Bible does not contradict itself, why does Hebrews 1:5 say that God never said, “You are My Son” to any of His angels?
Doesn’t this mean that Jesus is called the “Son of God” in a different sense than angels are called God’s sons?
What does the Bible mean when it says that Jesus is the “Son of Man” at Matthew 26:64?
Since God is not a man (Hosea 11:9), could it be that Jesus is the “Son of Man” because He possesses the nature of man, being fully human?
Since Jesus is called the “Son of Man” because He is 100% man, what do you think Scripture means when it calls Jesus the “Son of God”? He must be 100% God, right?

Ferisidowu:
Reconcile heb 2:10 and rev 4:11

Reconcile mighty God and Almighty God I'd appreciate your doing that....

John 1:3 shows he made all things and affirm that without him nothing was made THAT WAS MADE

YOU CAN READ THAT REV 3:14 IN AMPLIFIED BIBLE IF YOU WANT ....

YET MY POST BELOW IS TRUTHFUL


alright no problems although you made it seem like I brought propaganda or I changed it to fit my theology .... No it the true doctrine

I explain again


Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is not Jehovah God. Only the Father is Jehovah God. Concurring that Logos, was “existing in God’s form”(Philippians 5:5-11) the Society expounded its Christology as follows,

He [prehumen Jesus] was a spirit person, just as “God is a Spirit”; he was a mighty one ([color=#006600]hmmm one or mighty God You answer that )although not almighty as Jehovah God is; also he was before all others of God’s creatures, for he was the first son that Jehovah God brought forth. Hence he is called “the only begotten Son” of God, for God had no partner in bringing forth his first-begotten Son. He was the first of Jehovah God’s creations. He speaks so of himself, at Revelation (or Apocalypse) 3:14: “These are the things the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.” (NWT) (Watchtower 1952, 32)[/color]

Is it true that prehumen Jesus being “the beginning of the creation by God”(NW emp. added) means that He was the first of Jehovah God’s creations? This post aimed to show that the Society is not warranted in reading their presupposed theology into Revelation 3:14.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the word “beginning” (Gk. αρχη, G794 archē) in Revelation 3:14 η αρχη της κτισεως του Θεου (the beginning of the creation of God) indicate that prehumen Jesus was brought forth as the first of Jehovah God’s (who is the Father) invisible creations.

Archē, contended the Society, “cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the ‘beginner’ of God’s creation.”(1989, 14) John is said to have used various forms of archē, “more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning.”” Is this true?

John used archē synonymously with alpha(G1) and prōtos (first Gk. πρῶτος G4413) in Revelation 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning[archē] and the end”(ESV) as titles applied to God. Josephus also applied archē to God when he wrote,

The first command is concerning God, and affirms that God contains all things, and is a being every way perfect and happy, self-sufficient, and supplying all other beings; the beginning [ἀρχή], the middle, and the end of all things (Against Apion 2.190)

Josephus viewed God as the beginning of all things. Unquestionably [b]he did not understood archē to mean that God had a beginning. In this sense, it is possible, contrary to the Society, to rightly translate archē ho theos ho ktisis in Revelation 3:14 as ruler or authority of creation of God (cf Luke 20:20 1 Co. 15:24) Following this path is HCSB translating Originator of God’s creation and NIV, the ruler of God’s creation.

Though it is possible to translate Jesus as ruler or origin of God’s creation, it is more plausible that John used archē as beginning in sense of time, but not as the Society supposed, namely the beginning of the original creation, but the new creation. Revelation 3:14 read with 1:15’s πρωτότοκος (firstborn) and ἄρχων (ruler) in view, viz., Jesus is “the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth”(ESV emp. added) indicate that Jesus is the beginning of the new heaven and new earth.

Furthermore prehumen Jesus cannot be the first of Jehovah God’s creations in the sense that He was created because He claimed the title of eternality, the first and the last. (Rev. 1:17 cf. Isa. 44:6; 48:12)[/b]

The Society, thus, is not warranted to read their theology of a created prehumen Jesus into Revelation 3:14, since as Josephus, the beginning of the creation does not necessarily convey the meaning of beginning to exist, but lordship and that Revelation 3:14 is plausibly understood as beginning of the new creation.





To the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God," (Revelation 3:14, New World Translation).
The Jehovah's Witnesses point to this verse to deny the deity of Christ. They claim that if Jesus is the "beginning" of the creation of God, that must mean that He is part of that creation. They teach that this verse upholds their view that Jesus is the first creation,
. A more careful reading with proper attention to the greater context, however, actually exposes that this verse does the opposite. It actually points to the deity of Jesus and His eternal unity and equality with the Father.
Beginning
The Greek word translated "beginning" here is the word "arche." Arche certainly can mean "beginning" as in "the first in series,"
1 which is how the Jehovah's Witness understands it here. But it can also mean "beginning" in the sense of the "origin" or "source" of a thing,
2 It even can mean "ruler" or "authority,"
3 from which we get words like "archbishop", "archangel", or "arch enemy." In Greek philosophy
, the "arche" was the eternal absolute from which all created things are derived,
4 from which we get words like "archetype". So it is not enough merely to note that Jesus IS the "beginning of the creation of God." We have to ask in what sense is Jesus the "arche" of creation? How is He using the word here?
In the immediate context of the verse, Jesus is addressing the church at Laodicea. He is not merely stating random facts about Himself but is reinforcing the authority of His words. The term "amen" is a strong affirmation of the truthfulness of a statement.
5 When Jesus calls Himself "the amen," He is saying that His own identity is the ultimate affirmation of truth. Who He is proves the truthfulness of what He says. This is reinforced by the second title He gives Himself here, "the faithful and true witness." The context is emphasizing Jesus' authority and identity as the arbiter of truth. When He gives the third title, that He is the "arche" of creation, it seems highly unlikely that the sense intended here is merely "God made me before He made you. I come first on a timeline." If Jesus is the source of everything that is or the ruler of everything that is, that furthers His point. Stating that He is one of the things that God created and comes first in chronological order doesn't do anything to establish His authority or the truthfulness of His testimony. The statement would simply be out of place. Translators have long realized this, as a brief survey below helps illustrate.
The 1599 Geneva Bible translates it "beginning of the creatures of God." The translators add an explanatory note to clarify the sense they mean: "Of whom all things that are made have their beginning."
The NASB translates it "the beginning of the creation of God," [b] also clarifying in a footnote: "I.e. Origin or Source"
[b]
HCSB, NET, and the Messianic Jewish "Tree of Life Version" all render it - "the originator of God's creation"
The NRSV similarly translates it - "the Origin of God's creation"
The NIV renders it - "the Ruler of God's creation"
The Young's Literal Translation similarly translates - "the Chief of the creation of God"
The Living Bible offers the interpretation - "the primeval source of God's creation."
From the earliest English translators to the best scholars of today and many in between, the context clearly demands that we understand Jesus to be the "beginning" in the sense of the origin or source of creation; the one who has authority over all things because He made and sustains them all. In this sense, Jesus' claim to be the "beginning" greatly established the authority of His words and the trustworthiness of His promises and judgments about to be given.
The Greater Context

The Book of Revelation uses the title of "the Beginning" in a few other places, so it is important to note how the rest of the book fleshes out the meaning. God Himself is called the beginning, and no Jehovah's Witness would dare claim that this implies that Jehovah is a created being:
"And the One seated on the throne said: Look! I am making all things new. Also he says: Write, for these words are faithful and true. And he said to me: They have come to pass! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the spring of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son," (Revelation 21:5-7, NWT)
This is the one on the throne who will be the God and Father of those who inherit eternal life. It's safe to say that we are talking about Jehovah God here, and He calls Himself the beginning [arche]. It echoes what was said at the beginning of the book:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says Jehovah God, the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty," (Revelation 1:8, NWT).
God the Father, however, is not the only one to say this in the book of Revelation. Jesus declares in the last chapter:
"Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to repay each one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who wash their robes, so that they may have authority to go to the trees of life and that they may gain entrance into the city through its gates. Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and those who are sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying. I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star," (Revelation 22:12-16, NWT)
[b]So Jesus is the beginning in the very same sense that the Father is the beginning. This obviously does not imply being a part of creation. And there are not two beginnings of creation, nor two ends. There are not two alphas, two omegas, two firsts, and two lasts. If God and a created being could both separately be called by these exact same titles in the exact same context in the exact same book, the titles become completely meaningless. Far from denying Jesus divinity, the title of "the beginning" in Revelation actually affirms it!

Additional Evidence

It should also be briefly observed that the Book of Revelation frequently points to the Trinitarian understanding that Jesus and the Father are distinct persons but are one and the same God. That the author distinguishes between Jesus and the Father is clear and not in dispute. But look at how he also identifies them.
The final chapter of revelation clearly shows the one true God of the Old Testament is the one who sent the angel who revealed these things, and that it is His angel:
"He said to me: 'These words are faithful and true; yes, Jehovah, the God who inspired the prophets, has sent his angel to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place,'" (Revelation 22:6. NWT).
In the very same chapter, however, Jesus claims to be the one who sent the angel and the one whose angel it is:
"I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star," (Revelation 22:16, NWT)
The same chapter also speaks of a single throne of "God and of the Lamb." The slaves and servants of the one on this thrown offer Him sacred service (worship) and have his name on their foreheads:
"And there will no longer be any curse. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his slaves will offer him sacred service; and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads," (Revelation 22:3-4. NWT).
Who is the one on the throne? God. It is God's throne, and throughout the book He is upon it. But interestingly, it is also the throne of the Lamb and it is the Lamb sitting on the throne.
"That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down on them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them and will guide them to springs of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes," (Revelation 7:15-17, NWT).
So God is the one on the throne, and the Lamb is the one on the throne, and there is no contradiction. Further, whose name is on their foreheads? The name of both God the Father and the Lamb!
"Then I saw, and look! the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who have his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads," (Revelation 14:1, NWT)
There is one and only one eternal and almighty God. He is the beginning and the end. He sits on the throne. Both the Father and the Lamb are the beginning and the end and sit on the throne. Both the Father and the Lamb are Jehovah, the one true God. This is perfectly consistent with the biblical teaching . The book of Revelation is a beautiful testimony to who Jesus is. He is the one with whom creation began. He is not a creation but the creator.[/b]

The Bold is where you pitch your tent " Origin or Source " and Now I will give you a prove from your very own bible that showed your defence is invalid unless you are ready to admit your Bible contradicts .

1 Corinthians 8 vs 6 ' for us there is but one God, FROM whom all things came '

Read that again!

It says the Father of Jesus is the Source of all things NOT JESUS

two things are involve .

- Jesus is also d source, But the Bible Lied by saying all things come from the father alone .

OR

All things come from the Father alone, therefore Jesus is not origin or source BUT Beginning of Creation of God

Which is correct ?

Ferisidowu:



This shows you weren't reading my posts ..(at least the ones I posted recently ).. Read it. the answer is there let me help a little by pasting some of the answers here .........read my posts for full answers

. for full answers

Read what I posted the answers earlier .....





Pointing to the fact that the angels are called “sons of God” at Job 38:7, [/b]a Jehovah’s Witness may object to your conclusions by saying that Jesus was claiming to be an angel, rather than God Himself. To this objection, read Hebrews 1:5 , “For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’? And again: ‘I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son’?” Then ,I ask the Jehovah’s Witness the following questions:
Since the Bible does not contradict itself, why does Hebrews 1:5 say that God never said, “You are My Son” to any of His angels?

Doesn’t this mean that Jesus is called the “Son of God” in a different sense than angels are called God’s sons?

What does the Bible mean when it says that Jesus is the “Son of Man” at Matthew 26:64?
Since God is not a man (Hosea 11:9), could it be that Jesus is the “Son of Man” because He possesses the nature of man, being fully human?
Since Jesus is called the “Son of Man” because He is 100% man, what do you think Scripture means when it calls Jesus the “Son of God”? He must be 100% God, right?

Hebrew 1 vs 5 is a declaration , It doesn't change the fact God is still a Father to the angels, and they are his sons .. neither does it change the fact that Jesus is still " SON OF GOD " . A title never applied to his Father, if truly it meant being Almighty, His Father would have also been called Son of God, But Never is he called such which defeat your last line of thought.

Why should he be called " Son of God " a title given to angels and man . Which is perfectly understood by every Christian as been Created by God . b] why change the rule when it comes to Jesus ? [/b]

Ferisidowu:


1) I can't settle your word "become" since no one becomes God ... Now since it's evident from Hebrew 1:10 that he has been God from the beginning for if he had laid the foundations of the world from the beginning he must have been before that so since he is before beginning
Then I'm directing a question to you when was the statement in Isaiah 9:6 made it's evident that this statement wasn't made in itself from the beginning . When we agree about when that prophecy was made and when and when he made the heavens and the earth then it will be obvious "when he become God" not that he became God I was just putting it in your words

To answer your question I will like to draw your attention to the grammar used in the verse that you quoted (Isaiah 9:6), "he will be called...Mighty God" Become stems from the verb "to be" so try to settle it. And the book of Isaiah was completed in 732 BCE which was about 730 years before Jesus was born. Now, here is the question, When was the world created? What is 'the world'?

Ferisidowu:

2) IT OBVIOUS that his essence never changed is the eternal word of God if we look at the prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 we see that it's a prophecy about the Messiah (man Christ) yet the prophecy reads "mighty God" so it was evident that the man Jesus was (is) mighty God (my question to you is if he was called mighty God and God is Almighty does that mean we have 2 God's or JUST RELATE MIGHTY GOD AND ALMIGHTY GOD that means that the Messiah never stopped being God ..

To answer your question, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 says, "there are so-called gods, ...in heaven..." Jesus then said that the ONLY true one out of all is Jehovah. Judging by your analogy, in superlative term we may go by Exodus 7:1(I have made you); Isaiah 9:6(will be); John 17:3(The only). How about that? Do you agree?

Ferisidowu:

On mark 13;32 Basically we know that Christ knows all things e.g

This is actually what that verse says, Mark 13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Ferisidowu:

John 16:30 "Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God."

Jesus said in John 5:30 I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear. John 5:19 the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he "sees" his Father doing

Ferisidowu:

John 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me "unless" the Father "who sent me" draws them.


Isaiah 11:2
The Spirit "of' the Jehovah will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Jehovah.

Ferisidowu:
And also the husband issue with the woman at the well but then how do we reconcile Mark with these verses """Verse 32. Neither the Son] This clause is not found either in Matthew or Luke;. To me it is utterly unaccountable, how Jesus, who knew so correctly all the particulars which he here lays down, and which were to a jot and tittle verified by the event - how he who knew that not one stone should be left on another, should be ignorant of the day and hour when this should be done, though Daniel, Da 9:24, c., could fix the very year, not less than five hundred years before it happened: how he in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, should not know this small matter, I cannot comprehend, but on this ground, that the Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus might, at one time, communicate less of the knowledge of futurity to him than at another. However, I strongly suspect that the clause was not originally in this Gospel. Its not being found in the parallel places in the other evangelists is, in my opinion, a strong presumption against it. But Dr. Macknight, and others, solve this difficulty in the following manner. They suppose the verb οιδεν to have the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphel, in which verbs are taken in a causative, declarative, or permissive sense and that it means here, make known, or promulge, as it is to be understood in 1Co 2:2. This intimates that this secret was not to be made known, either by men or angels, no, not even by the Son of man himself; but it should be made known by the Father only, in the execution of the purposes of his justice. I am afraid this only cuts the knot, but does not untie it...... So if it's about growing in knowledge of it as man he didn't know ....

This is copy and paste from a blog. It does not tally because it is only equivocation.

Ferisidowu:
You can also resolve it please I'd appreciate your view or is it that he doesn't know all things

resolve what?

Ferisidowu:

3) DID JESUS DIE FOR 3 DAYS
Yes he was dead for three days from human point of view (sincerely I don't understand your question you can paraphrase .... What I understand it to be is" WAS HE DORMANT""

Are you human? If he was dormant, how was he able to redeem you with his blood? 1 Corinthians 15:2-3 "By this gospel you are saved, ...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures".
Are you sure that you can ever be saved by holding on to your dormancy theory?
The question is 100% correct and biblical. How best can I rephrase it? OK, was Jesus dead for 3 days?

Ferisidowu:

4) WHEN HE DIED DID THE FATHER DIE AS WELL
WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER IS NO ..... TO ME THE QUESTION IS TOO COMPLEX OR it's NOT NEEDED
BECAUSE even JESUS when he was dead in the body WAS STILL VERY ACTIVE IN SPIRIT

If you didn't understand the previous question, how were you able to admit to it now? I emboldened it for you to read your answer again. Now, since you admit that the father did not die, yet Jesus and the father are the same God, what is the separation that caused Jesus to die and not the father? What is the meaning of death?

Ferisidowu:

Jesus’ body, not His spirit, died and was buried later in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38-42).It was His body that was stabbed with a spear. It was His hands and feet that were nailed to the cross and bleeding. It was His back that was raw and bleeding because of the Roman whip. His head was also bleeding because of the thorns that had been shaped into a crown and pushed down onto His head. It was His body that died and not His spirit.
The scripture reveals that we have a body and a spirit. It tells us that our bodies are dead without a spirit.
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (NASB) James 2:26
Therefore, when Jesus gave up His spirit on the cross, His body died, but not His spirit. It was still alive. In fact, the following two passages tell us what Jesus was doing while Jesus’ body was dead between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

Did his spirit form when he was in Mary's womb?
Matthew 27:50 "...he gave up his spirit". How did he give it up? What does it mean to give up something?

Ferisidowu:
Therefore it says, “WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.” (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) (NASB) Eph. 4:8-10
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (NASB) 1 Pet. 3:18-20
Besides you can't preach to unconscious being s

Did he descend as a child and did he return as a child? Where is the lower part of the earth? Do you have firm knowledge about the earth and the universe?

Ferisidowu:

5) WHO RESURRECTED HIM?
OF COURSE THE FATHER ,,,,""All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.""""

In Acts 2:24, Peter says that “God raised [Jesus] from the dead” (see also Romans 8:11 and 2 Corinthians 4:14).

. And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So who exactly resurrected Jesus from the dead? Was it the Father, the Son.

The basic answer is that “God has raised . . . Jesus to life” (Acts 2:32). The Father is God, and the Father raised His Son to life on the third day after the crucifixion (Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 13:4). The Spirit is also God, and the Spirit had a part in raising Jesus from the dead. The Son is also God, and the Son, too, was responsible for His own resurrection.

I emboldened some texts above which i agree with but you are contradicting yourself. The father, the spirit, the son himself... Jesus said "i will", the Bible said, "God raised". Can you spot the difference in the tenses? Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Are you in contention with the Bible?

Ferisidowu:

How can a dead man resurrect himself? Jesus was more than a man who died; Wicked men could kill His body, but they could not change His eternal nature or diminish His divine power. In John 10:17–18 Jesus says something that no mere mortal could ever say: “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.” No one else in the history of the world has ever had the authority both to lay down his life and raise it up again.

Are you making things up or are you still in line with the Bible's teachings? You said that you understand all these by providence, yeah? Where did the bible say that Jesus was more than a man who died?

Ferisidowu:

Furthermore, Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). He did not say, “My Father is the resurrection.” He claimed to be the resurrection Himself; life resides with Jesus, and He has absolute authority over life and death Jesus is God (some jw agree the issue here with them is MIGHTY OR ALMIGHTY) He could say He would raise up His body on the third day because He is part of the One Being of God.

You are right, JW do agree that Jesus is the resurrection and life and it is made clear in Matthew 11:27 "All things have been handed over to me by my Father". Did you notice the preposition used in that verse? If Jesus is God to you as a result of John 11:25 how about the one handing all these things over to him? What would you call him?

Ferisidowu:

Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did,

such a thrilling and refreshing reply

Ferisidowu:

IN WHAT FORM WAS HE RESSURECTED

Jesus did rise from the dead in the same body he died in.

1 Peter 3:18 "...He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit'. Is the Bible wrong?

Ferisidowu:
Instead, it false that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore dont deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!

1 Peter 3:18 "...He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit'; 2 Corinthians 5:16 "...Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way". In John 6:51, are you eating of the bread?

Ferisidowu:

1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time; and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity
but what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."

Unfortunately, you are wrong about the JW. We simply acept the Bible's teaching as true when it said in 1 Peter 3:18 "...He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit'. Do you refute that verse?

Ferisidowu:

It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead:
"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
John 2:19-21 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Note that He said He would raise up "this temple." John the apostle clarifies for us that "this temple" was actually Jesus' physical body. Therefore, Jesus' physical body was raised from the dead. Very simple. However,I WANT YOU to believe Jesus' own words here.

Why are you contending with your own self? He will; he was

Ferisidowu:
Re examining ;;;
1 Pet. 3:18 where it says that Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" an attempt to show that Jesus was not raised physically but as a kind of spirit creature.
It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body.

This is not funny, bro. Did you say that you received this by providence? I am shocked. How would you also explain 1 Corinthians 15:45 "...The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"?

Ferisidowu:

This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" - a life-giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is said the same of Jesus.

Shocking! I am really speechless at this unbiblical thought. This is also revealed to you by providence? Where does your God live?

Ferisidowu:
2.also The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:44-50).
What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that after His resurrection Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have," (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus' blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood, and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul," (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.

What is flesh made up of? What is the meaning of Body? What is the composition of the bones?
From where did that body come? From heaven or did it form here on earth?

Ferisidowu:

3. The Jehovah's Witnesses (please note that I hold no grudges ) teach that Jesus manifested different physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been raised.
This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been raised when it hadn't. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised. He said in John 2:19-21, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body." Jesus said that His body would be raised.
. Fourth, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man--in present-tense language. If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man? He could not be.

since he is a man, how could he be a God? Does John 6:51 also indicate that he was tricking his disciples (the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.)? How about 1 Corinthians 15:45 (Jesus became a life-giving spirit.)? Since the Bible told us that he was raised a spirit in 1 Peter 3:18 (He was put to death in the flesh+ but made alive in the spirit), are you in contention with the Bible? Is it your thought against the word of God or the truth against your thought?

Ferisidowu:

JW also believe. Jesus manifested different bodies after the resurrection--the same way the angels took human form in the Old Testament in order to show the disciples that He had been raised.
Again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead . . . physically.
. Jesus was God in flesh (John 8:58; John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body He died in. ...because it is denying His physical resurrection which is the proof that He conquered death. The Jehovah's Witnesses need to keep Jesus' own words in mind when He said, "Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up." (John 2:19). Since He was speaking of His body says John in verse 21, then it must be true; Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Also, at His ascension people watched Him rise to be with the Father. They saw His body ascend. That is why it can be said that Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and man. (1 Tim. 2:5). It isn't an angel or a spirit creature that is the mediator. It is Jesus the man.

If Peter, Jesus' apostle, who saw Jesus eye to eye and who was inspired by Jesus to write this verse of the Bible in 1 Peter 3:18 could relatively be called a liar by your explanation above, then I wonder where the providence you talk about came from? Did you see Jesus yourself or do you feel that you have more understanding of spiritual things than the apostle Peter? Or do you feel that you have more spiritual inspiration than apostle Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15:45?

Ferisidowu:

WHY WAS HE CALLED SON
Because he was SON who learned obedience through things he suffered

But you said that he was the son of God before coming to the earth to suffer. If he is called the son because of what he learned and he only suffered in the earth. So was he not a son in the heaven prior to his time in the earth? Or did he also suffer in the heaven?

Ferisidowu:

EXPLAIN SON IN DIVINE TERMS?
Before I go into this let me talk about the Trinity
Before we can adequately defend the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ, we must have an accurate understanding of what the Trinity is and what it is not.
The Trinity is the view that the three persons mentioned in the Bible: Father, Son (i.e., Jesus) and Holy Spirit are one God. This Triune God is called “Jehovah” in the Old Testament and “Lord” in the New Testament God is ELOHIM IN OLD TESTAMENT AND THEOS IN NEW TESTAMENT. Each person of the Godhead is distinct in His Personhood, yet each is equal in nature and eternal in uncreated substance[b]. Together as the one and only true God, they co-exist, co-create and co-rule this present world. [/b]There is a functional hierarchy that exists within the members of this Triune God. The Father, being the supreme person in authority, sends His “Son” Jesus Christ to redeem mankind, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit to indwell Christian believers. During the incarnation (Christ’s coming to earth), Jesus added a human nature to His Divine person. Thus, it was when He operated under the limitations of His humanity that He was unable to do things that He would otherwise have been able to do as God.
[b]Misconceptions[/b] regarding the Trinity doctrine occur when the doctrine is misdefined in Modalistic or Tritheistic terms. Modalism is the view that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit operate not only as one God, but as one person manifesting Himself in various modes at different times and places. In this view, the person of God may appear as the Father. At other times, He appears as the Son and then again as the Holy Spirit, but always as one person. The problem with this view is that if God is only “one person,” He would be unable to manifest as Father, Son and Holy Spirit at one time. Thus, we would have to discount Scriptural passages such as Matthew 3:16 where at the baptism of Jesus, all three persons manifested Themselves, and Genesis 1:26 where God refers to Himself in the plural pronouns of “Us” and “Our.”
Tritheism is the direct opposite of Modalism. It teaches that the three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are not only distinct in their Personhoods, but are separate “Gods.” In the third and fourth centuries, the Church soundly defeated this view in favor of the clear teaching of Scripture that there is only one true God (John 17:3).
Thus, this single Being we call the Triune God came to be defined as three distinct Persons in one substance. During the fourth century, in an attempt to prevent Modalistic and Tritheistic views of God from being promulgated in Christian Churches, this belief was codified into the Creed of Athanasius. Throughout the centuries, the Athanasian Creed has served as the accepted standard by which Christians define the Trinity doctrine. Today, when witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is often necessary to appeal to this creed in order to counter the Modalistic views of the Trinity presented in Watchtower literature. /quote]
You did not explain what the term "son" means in the divine sense. I will save the doctrine of the trinity for another day. Let us focus on Jesus and God first. [quote author=Ferisidowu post=62364705]
.
Also
I believe Jesus is God, but I DO NOT believe Jesus is the Father

JW do not doubt that Jesus is a god, but Jesus himself says that there is only one true God and that he is not the one in John 17:3. Do you believe in Jesus? In John 20:17 he said that your God is Jehovah. Once again, do you believe in Jesus?

Ferisidowu:

b]Pointing to the fact that the angels are called “sons of God” at Job 38:7, [/b]a Jehovah’s Witness may object to your conclusions by saying that Jesus was claiming to be an angel, rather than God Himself. To this objection, read Hebrews 1:5 , “For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’? And again: ‘I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son’?” Then ,I ask the Jehovah’s Witness the following questions:
Since the Bible does not contradict itself, why does Hebrews 1:5 say that God never said, “You are My Son” to any of His angels?
Doesn’t this mean that Jesus is called the “Son of God” in a different sense than angels are called God’s sons?
What does the Bible mean when it says that Jesus is the “Son of Man” at Matthew 26:64?
Since God is not a man (Hosea 11:9), could it be that Jesus is the “Son of Man” because He possesses the nature of man, being fully human?
Since Jesus is called the “Son of Man” because He is 100% man, what do you think Scripture means when it calls Jesus the “Son of God”? He must be 100% God, right?

Are you writing a narrative or are you copying and pasting as a quote? The above is confusing. I want to believe that I am having this conversation with a human.

Ferisidowu:

Common objections Jehovah’s Witnesses raise against the belief that Jesus is God are the facts that no human has seen God (John 1:18), but Jesus was seen (John 1:14);God cannot die (Habakkuk 1:12), but Jesus died (Philippians 2:; God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), but Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1); God knows all things (1 John 3:20), but Jesus did not know the day or hour of His return (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). To answer these objections, explain to the Jehovah’s Witness that because God in His very nature cannot be seen, tempted, nor physically die to pay for the sins of mankind, it was necessary for Jesus to add a human nature to His Divine person so that He could redeem mankind. Philippians 2:5-10 explains how Jesus continued to exist in God’s “form” (i.e., nature), but relinquished His right to enjoy equality with God so that He could limit Himself to the human nature he had adopted in order to redeem mankind. Thus, by adding a human dimension to His Divine person, Jesus became the visible “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). The following chart illustrates how Jesus limited Himself to the finiteness of His human nature at certain times, but expressed the God-attributes of His Divine nature at others:
DIVINE QUALITIES;
HUMAN QUALITIES
OMNIPOTENCE (All Power): Mark 2:7-12; 14:62-64; John 2:7-11
HUNGER & WEARINESS: Luke 4:2; John 4:6; Matthew 8:24
OMNIPRESENCE (Present Everywhere): John 1:48; Matt. 18:20; 28:20
LIMITED PHYSICAL BODY: Mark 3:9; John 11:32
OMNISCIENCE (All Knowledge): John 2:24-25; 6:64; 16:30
LIMITED KNOWLEDGE: Mark 13:32; John 11:34

Equivocation. I simply cannot understand what you are trying to imply. Are you advising people on how to fend off the JW by quoting a JW? I am a JW. Hello (waving)! What you might be trying to express above cannot change the Bible's message.

Ferisidowu:

Some struggle with the concept that Jesus can submit His will to the will of the Father and yet remain “equal” in nature to the Father. They may also question how Jesus can be “equal” to God, yet proclaim at John 14:28 that the Father is “greater” than Him. Here again, our human analogy comes into play to explain how this is the case. Ask the Jehovah’s Witness:
In God’s design for the family, doesn’t the human father hold the greatest authority within the family? Although the father may share his authority with the mother, would you not you agree that he is in a “greater” position than anyone else in the family and is the ultimate one in charge?

In Hebrews chapter 1 that you quoted earlier, verse 6 calls Jesus the firstborn of God. I doubt if you fathom the grammar used in the sentence.

Ferisidowu:
Does the fact that the human father is in a “greater” position of authority than anyone else in the family prove that his wife or his son or daughter is inherently inferior to him? If so, are we to argue that they are less human than their father is simply because they submit to his “greater” authority and obey his rules and guidelines?
Then, why argue that Jesus is inferior to God simply because He submits His will to the Father? At Luke 2:51, we read that Jesus “continued in subjection” to Mary and Joseph. Does this mean that Jesus was inferior to them?

If you could use a better and biblical example, you can find it here in 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
There is no equality between Jehovah and Christ. He is Jehovah's creation and he sits at Jehovah's right hand. You cannot co-equalize them by force because Jesus said in John 8:50 "I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge". He has already told you who your God is in John 20:17. Anyone who does not accept it, does not have love for Jesus and his words.

Ferisidowu:

So when we are talking of son of God its different in scope and meaning with the general sons of God although each of the sons can be referred to as individual son of God ...... But not like the only son

Why not? Your illustration of the wife and children fits all. You said since they are all humans; same as the angels, they are all spirits, so call them Gods as well. Do not demur now.

Ferisidowu:

THE CHEMISTRY OF HOW JESUS BECAME HUMAN?
WE KNOW NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD

where is the providence when it is needed?

Ferisidowu:

I think other questions have been answered in the posts if you need me to enumerate .... I'll do that

MOSES CALLED HIS GOD JEHOVAH
[quote author=Ferisidowu post=62364805]
JESUS MEANS "Savior."
It means JEHOVAH SAVES

savior, Jehovah saves?
It is actually "Jehovah Is Salvation"

Ferisidowu:

ABOUT HOW I WAS HELPED!!!.
Its true Providence I believe when we pray and trust God he answers us ..
. its true Providence by helping get to know about the Greek words ... Not allowing me hold church doctrines but Bible doctrines etc ... Even being alive

lovingJehovah:
Yes, I am a full timer and with all due respect, your aggression is unworthy. I didn't insult you or incite hatred toward Islam. All I did was ask you questions about the religion that you put your faith in and claim to be the only true religion above mine. You said that mine is man made. So, I am curious to get the answers from you. There must be reasons why yours is the religion from God as you said. I accept to be ignorant to Islam so edify me by answering my questions.
Listen, I know the art of pivoting so do not dodge my questions by using sentimental slurs.
We will have a private chat for sure but for the interest of having a closure on the issue that you raised on this thread, kindly respond to my questions.
I will repost them here to make it easy for you.
QUESTIONS

If your koran is truly a book from God and brought to Mohammed by angel Jibril (Gabriel), when does it say that the world would end?
What prophecies in the koran has achieved notable and accurate fulfilment?
Does the koran give historical names of notable people in history that scientists or archaeologists have been able to reconcile? If yes, give us reference please.
The Bible that you critic contains detail in history that we find useful and staggering. I will like to see such in the koran for example, do you believe in the hanging garden of Babylon? Do you believe that there was someone called sennacherib in history?
What does Jerusalem mean to Islam?
Compare Jerusalem and Mecca in Islam.
What is the koran, a book of the law, a history book, a book of God, a book of the angel or a book of the prophet?

In what language was the 10 commandments given to Musa written?
If it wasn't Arabic, why was the koran then written in Arabic?
What is the language of the Angels since angel Jibril spoke Arabic to Mohammed?
How logical is it to have a book written in a strange language, recited by adults who cannot understand that language, and yet claim that their faiths are in that book?
When was the Koran first translated?
In what language were you taught the koran?
Are you an Arab?
If you believe in Musa(Moses), what was the name that Musa called his God and in what language?
What historical trace links you to the God of Musa?
If Islam was so pure, why are all Islamic states failing?
If the God of Islam is true, why wasn't he able to defeat the God of the Jews?
In what way was Musa given the 10 Commandments and in what way did Mohammed receive his message?
Why the confusing method of communication? Could it have been different God's?
Allah is a title (God), what, then, is the true name of Allah? (Reconcile it with the name Musa called his God and provide evidence)
When was the first pronouncement of the word 'Allah'?
Before your mysterious visitation of Mohammed by the angel, what god did Mohammed worship? In what book did he find the law of his god? And what is that book called?
Why is Mohammed more popular than Musa or Ibrahim?
Why is Mohammed's book given superior consideration than Musa' book?
Why is sex and virginity the highest reward to Muslim heroes?
If you believe in Isa(Jesus) as a messenger as your koran says, where are the messages that he preached written?
If God could send Jibril to write a book, why then did he send so many messengers?
If your god is the truth, why do you face the east? Does he live in the Sun?
If you worship the same God as Musa, did he face the east to pray?
What relationship does the worship of God have with the moon?
Did Musa observe the moon?
If Islam is truly the best religion, why isn't Saudi Arabia your holy land taking in Muslim refugees?
Why did 3 Islamic states lose to Israel in the 60ies n 70ies?
Why have Muslims taken up guns and bombs when your prophet says sword?
Why are you socialising with the infidels on this thread, have you come with the motive to cut the neck?
Why are Muslims still puppets to the west?

Do not think I will dodge your questions but it never sound scholarly to me you've portrayed yourself so far. You already sound to have the seed of hatred in your heart which I have no bid for. Do you think we separate between the Prophets in Islam? Read Qur'an ch 2 v 285. I may say not all your questions are in place.

lovingJehovah:
Yes, I am a full timer and with all due respect, your aggression is unworthy. I didn't insult you or incite hatred toward Islam. All I did was ask you questions about the religion that you put your faith in and claim to be the only true religion above mine. You said that mine is man made. So, I am curious to get the answers from you. There must be reasons why yours is the religion from God as you said. I accept to be ignorant to Islam so edify me by answering my questions.
Listen, I know the art of pivoting so do not dodge my questions by using sentimental slurs.
We will have a private chat for sure but for the interest of having a closure on the issue that you raised on this thread, kindly respond to my questions.
I will repost them here to make it easy for you.
QUESTIONS

If your koran is truly a book from God and brought to Mohammed by angel Jibril (Gabriel), when does it say that the world would end?
What prophecies in the koran has achieved notable and accurate fulfilment?
Does the koran give historical names of notable people in history that scientists or archaeologists have been able to reconcile? If yes, give us reference please.
The Bible that you critic contains detail in history that we find useful and staggering. I will like to see such in the koran for example, do you believe in the hanging garden of Babylon? Do you believe that there was someone called sennacherib in history?
What does Jerusalem mean to Islam?
Compare Jerusalem and Mecca in Islam.
What is the koran, a book of the law, a history book, a book of God, a book of the angel or a book of the prophet?

In what language was the 10 commandments given to Musa written?
If it wasn't Arabic, why was the koran then written in Arabic?
What is the language of the Angels since angel Jibril spoke Arabic to Mohammed?
How logical is it to have a book written in a strange language, recited by adults who cannot understand that language, and yet claim that their faiths are in that book?
When was the Koran first translated?
In what language were you taught the koran?
Are you an Arab?
If you believe in Musa(Moses), what was the name that Musa called his God and in what language?
What historical trace links you to the God of Musa?
If Islam was so pure, why are all Islamic states failing?
If the God of Islam is true, why wasn't he able to defeat the God of the Jews?
In what way was Musa given the 10 Commandments and in what way did Mohammed receive his message?
Why the confusing method of communication? Could it have been different God's?
Allah is a title (God), what, then, is the true name of Allah? (Reconcile it with the name Musa called his God and provide evidence)
When was the first pronouncement of the word 'Allah'?
Before your mysterious visitation of Mohammed by the angel, what god did Mohammed worship? In what book did he find the law of his god? And what is that book called?
Why is Mohammed more popular than Musa or Ibrahim?
Why is Mohammed's book given superior consideration than Musa' book?
Why is sex and virginity the highest reward to Muslim heroes?
If you believe in Isa(Jesus) as a messenger as your koran says, where are the messages that he preached written?
If God could send Jibril to write a book, why then did he send so many messengers?
If your god is the truth, why do you face the east? Does he live in the Sun?
If you worship the same God as Musa, did he face the east to pray?
What relationship does the worship of God have with the moon?
Did Musa observe the moon?
If Islam is truly the best religion, why isn't Saudi Arabia your holy land taking in Muslim refugees?
Why did 3 Islamic states lose to Israel in the 60ies n 70ies?
Why have Muslims taken up guns and bombs when your prophet says sword?
Why are you socialising with the infidels on this thread, have you come with the motive to cut the neck?
Why are Muslims still puppets to the west?

I will answer your questions when I have the time because I'm not a full timer like you. This is week day.

Ferisidowu:


1) I can't settle your word "become" since no one becomes God ... Now since it's evident from Hebrew 1:10 that he has been God from the beginning for if he had laid the foundations of the world from the beginning he must have been before that so since he is before beginning
Then I'm directing a question to you when was the statement in Isaiah 9:6 made it's evident that this statement wasn't made in itself from the beginning . When we agree about when that prophecy was made and when and when he made the heavens and the earth then it will be obvious "when he become God" not that he became God I was just putting it in your words

2) IT OBVIOUS that his essence never changed is the eternal word of God if we look at the prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 we see that it's a prophecy about the Messiah (man Christ) yet the prophecy reads "mighty God" so it was evident that the man Jesus was (is) mighty God (my question to you is if he was called mighty God and God is Almighty does that mean we have 2 God's or JUST RELATE MIGHTY GOD AND ALMIGHTY GOD that means that the Messiah never stopped being God ..
.
On mark 13;32 Basically we know that Christ knows all things e.g

John 16:30
"Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God."

John 21:17
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.


Isaiah 11:2
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

And also the husband issue with the woman at the well but then how do we reconcile Mark with these verses """Verse 32. Neither the Son] This clause is not found either in Matthew or Luke;. To me it is utterly unaccountable, how Jesus, who knew so correctly all the particulars which he here lays down, and which were to a jot and tittle verified by the event - how he who knew that not one stone should be left on another, should be ignorant of the day and hour when this should be done, though Daniel, Da 9:24, c., could fix the very year, not less than five hundred years before it happened: how he in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, should not know this small matter, I cannot comprehend, but on this ground, that the Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus might, at one time, communicate less of the knowledge of futurity to him than at another. However, I strongly suspect that the clause was not originally in this Gospel. Its not being found in the parallel places in the other evangelists is, in my opinion, a strong presumption against it. But Dr. Macknight, and others, solve this difficulty in the following manner. They suppose the verb οιδεν to have the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphel, in which verbs are taken in a causative, declarative, or permissive sense and that it means here, make known, or promulge, as it is to be understood in 1Co 2:2. This intimates that this secret was not to be made known, either by men or angels, no, not even by the Son of man himself; but it should be made known by the Father only, in the execution of the purposes of his justice. I am afraid this only cuts the knot, but does not untie it...... So if it's about growing in knowledge of it as man he didn't know ....

You can also resolve it please I'd appreciate your view or is it that he doesn't know all things

3) DID JESUS DIE FOR 3 DAYS
Yes he was dead for three days from human point of view (sincerely I don't understand your question you can paraphrase .... What I understand it to be is" WAS HE DORMANT""

4) WHEN HE DIED DID THE FATHER DIE AS WELL

WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER IS NO ..... TO ME THE QUESTION IS TOO COMPLEX OR it's NOT NEEDED

BECAUSE even JESUS when he was dead in the body WAS STILL VERY ACTIVE IN SPIRIT


Jesus’ body, not His spirit, died and was buried later in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38-42).It was His body that was stabbed with a spear. It was His hands and feet that were nailed to the cross and bleeding. It was His back that was raw and bleeding because of the Roman whip. His head was also bleeding because of the thorns that had been shaped into a crown and pushed down onto His head. It was His body that died and not His spirit.
The scripture reveals that we have a body and a spirit. It tells us that our bodies are dead without a spirit.
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (NASB) James 2:26
Therefore, when Jesus gave up His spirit on the cross, His body died, but not His spirit. It was still alive. In fact, the following two passages tell us what Jesus was doing while Jesus’ body was dead between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

Therefore it says, “WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.” (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) (NASB) Eph. 4:8-10

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (NASB) 1 Pet. 3:18-20
Besides you can't preach to unconscious being s

5) WHO RESURRECTED HIM?

OF COURSE THE FATHER ,,,,""All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.""""

In Acts 2:24, Peter says that “God raised [Jesus] from the dead” (see also Romans 8:11 and 2 Corinthians 4:14).

. And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So who exactly resurrected Jesus from the dead? Was it the Father, the Son.

The basic answer is that “God has raised . . . Jesus to life” (Acts 2:32). The Father is God, and the Father raised His Son to life on the third day after the crucifixion (Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 13:4). The Spirit is also God, and the Spirit had a part in raising Jesus from the dead. The Son is also God, and the Son, too, was responsible for His own resurrection.

How can a dead man resurrect himself? [/b]Jesus was more than a man who died; Wicked men could kill His body, but they could not change His eternal nature or diminish His divine power. [b]In John 10:17–18 Jesus says something that no mere mortal could ever say: “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.” No one else in the history of the world has ever had the authority both to lay down his life and raise it up again.

Furthermore, Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). He did not say, “My Father is the resurrection.” He claimed to be the resurrection Himself; life resides with Jesus, and He has absolute authority over life and death Jesus is God (some jw agree the issue here with them is MIGHTY OR ALMIGHTY) He could say He would raise up His body on the third day because He is part of the One Being of God.

Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did,

IN WHAT FORM WAS HE RESSURECTED

Jesus did rise from the dead in the same body he died in. Instead, it false that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore dont deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!
1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time; and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity
but what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."
It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead:
"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
John 2:19-21 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Note that He said He would raise up "this temple." John the apostle clarifies for us that "this temple" was actually Jesus' physical body. Therefore, Jesus' physical body was raised from the dead. Very simple. However,I WANT YOU to believe Jesus' own words here.
Re examining ;;;
1 Pet. 3:18 where it says that Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" an attempt to show that Jesus was not raised physically but as a kind of spirit creature.
It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body. This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" - a life-giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is said the same of Jesus.
2.also The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:44-50).
What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that after His resurrection Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have," (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus' blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood, and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul," (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.

3. The Jehovah's Witnesses (please note that I hold no grudges ) teach that Jesus manifested different physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been raised.
This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been raised when it hadn't. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised. He said in John 2:19-21, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body." Jesus said that His body would be raised.
. Fourth, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man--in present-tense language. If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man? He could not be.

JW also believe. Jesus manifested different bodies after the resurrection--the same way the angels took human form in the Old Testament in order to show the disciples that He had been raised.
Again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead . . . physically.
. Jesus was God in flesh (John 8:58; John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body He died in. ...because it is denying His physical resurrection which is the proof that He conquered death. The Jehovah's Witnesses need to keep Jesus' own words in mind when He said, "Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up." (John 2:19). Since He was speaking of His body says John in verse 21, then it must be true; Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Also, at His ascension people watched Him rise to be with the Father. They saw His body ascend. That is why it can be said that Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and man. (1 Tim. 2:5). It isn't an angel or a spirit creature that is the mediator. It is Jesus the man.

WHY WAS HE CALLED SON

Because he was SON who learned obedience through things he suffered

EXPLAIN SON IN DIVINE TERMS?

Before I go into this let me talk about the Trinity

Before we can adequately defend the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ, we must have an accurate understanding of what the Trinity is and what it is not.
The Trinity is the view that the three persons mentioned in the Bible: Father, Son (i.e., Jesus) and Holy Spirit are one God. This Triune God is called “Jehovah” in the Old Testament and “Lord” in the New Testament God is ELOHIM IN OLD TESTAMENT AND THEOS IN NEW TESTAMENT. Each person of the Godhead is distinct in His Personhood, yet each is equal in nature and eternal in uncreated substance[b]. Together as the one and only true God, they co-exist, co-create and co-rule this present world. [/b]There is a functional hierarchy that exists within the members of this Triune God. The Father, being the supreme person in authority, sends His “Son” Jesus Christ to redeem mankind, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit to indwell Christian believers. During the incarnation (Christ’s coming to earth), Jesus added a human nature to His Divine person. Thus, it was when He operated under the limitations of His humanity that He was unable to do things that He would otherwise have been able to do as God.
[b]Misconceptions[/b] regarding the Trinity doctrine occur when the doctrine is misdefined in Modalistic or Tritheistic terms. Modalism is the view that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit operate not only as one God, but as one person manifesting Himself in various modes at different times and places. In this view, the person of God may appear as the Father. At other times, He appears as the Son and then again as the Holy Spirit, but always as one person. The problem with this view is that if God is only “one person,” He would be unable to manifest as Father, Son and Holy Spirit at one time. Thus, we would have to discount Scriptural passages such as Matthew 3:16 where at the baptism of Jesus, all three persons manifested Themselves, and Genesis 1:26 where God refers to Himself in the plural pronouns of “Us” and “Our.”
Tritheism is the direct opposite of Modalism. It teaches that the three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are not only distinct in their Personhoods, but are separate “Gods.” In the third and fourth centuries, the Church soundly defeated this view in favor of the clear teaching of Scripture that there is only one true God (John 17:3).
Thus, this single Being we call the Triune God came to be defined as three distinct Persons in one substance. During the fourth century, in an attempt to prevent Modalistic and Tritheistic views of God from being promulgated in Christian Churches, this belief was codified into the Creed of Athanasius. Throughout the centuries, the Athanasian Creed has served as the accepted standard by which Christians define the Trinity doctrine. Today, when witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is often necessary to appeal to this creed in order to counter the Modalistic views of the Trinity presented in Watchtower literature.
.
Also
I believe Jesus is God, but I DO NOT believe Jesus is the Father

Modalism
Modalism , also called Sabellianism , is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the
Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation , Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity . Trinitarians do you accept this? Ferisidowu watch out!!!

achorladey:


Modalism
Modalism , also called Sabellianism , is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the
Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation , Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity . Trinitarian do you accept this? Ferisidowu watch out!!!

This goes to Ferisidowu......... Since you accept the modalism view of Trinity.
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Do these scriptures shows correctness of modalism view of TRINITY?

achorladey:

This goes to Ferisidowu......... Since you accept the modalism view of Trinity.
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Do these scriptures shows correctness of modalism view of TRINITY?

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Do these scriptures support modalism views of TRINITY?

Tritheism
Tritheism is the belief in three distinct gods and stands in contrast to Trinitarianism.
From Jesus' standpoint and the Bible's viewpoint. As recorded in Deut 6:4 Mark 12:29 John 17:3 John 20:17. 1 Corinthians 15: 27,28...........
Is the tritheism view correct?

achorladey:


Modalism
Modalism , also called Sabellianism , is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the
Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation , Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity . Trinitarians do you accept this? Ferisidowu watch out!!!

. Hmmm at this point I'm perplexed please embolden the part where I wrote that I support modalism.....

Anyway if it wasn't clear through the text I'm OFFICIALLY SAYING IT THAT IM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE MODALIST VIEW .....

BESIDES I don't know what it is with the watch out .... You have read my posts .....


I need you to give a post in support of your view ... I'd gladly read it .......

Also if we can't respect ourselves what are we Christians for.... I still enjoy the way lovingjehovah chats and show his objections


If we can't respect ourselves the thread is uncalled for ......


My resolution is make a post let's read and also make our objections it's like a debate and we are trying to pass our views to one another .....


I'm not saying you should accept my posts ..... But yet you should also help me with a comprehensive post .......

If there wouldn't be respect among ourselves then this conversation is over .........

As for lovingjehovah pls if you have any question from my posts you can ask and I'd love an excerpt from you if you less busy. I appreciate your maturity and respect ...
...

achorladey:

This goes to Ferisidowu......... Since you accept the modalism view of Trinity.
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Do these scriptures shows correctness of modalism view of TRINITY?

I don't accept that

achorladey:


Modalism
Modalism , also called Sabellianism , is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the
Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation , Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity . Trinitarians do you accept this? Ferisidowu watch out!!!

I also remember that in my post directed to you I asked some questions ...pls answer them pls

achorladey:

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Do these scriptures support modalism views of TRINITY?

I've been following this thread but let me add my quota.

Jesus is an extension of God, God's image and His son.

What does this mean? As an extension of God, Jesus is a part of God, hence, he's also God himself however was made manifested in a form of human on earth, thereby representing the visible image of God. No wonder he told Philip that he was God because He's a part of God made manifested as a visible image of God that we can see! Don't forget we were made in the image of God, meaning we were made to like Jesus, who's the image of God. That's why Christian have to be like Jesus inside out.

Come to think of it, we were told Jesus is the Word of God, which was with him and the word being God himself, meaning the Word once lived in God but was made manifested in the form human, which is the very image of God that came to live with us here on earth. The scripture even says that He regard his Word more than His name, which means the Word (Jesus) is even regarded higher than the name of Jehovah, no wonder Christians often end their prayer with the name of Jesus, who's the only means to the Most high. He's simply God's head.

Hebrew 1:3 talked about Jesus being the brightness of God's glory and the express image of His person. What does this mean? It means Jesus completes God, he's simply an extension of God Himself. Jesus is the very form through which God express Himself! Remember, nothing was made without Jesus. Jesus is the completion of God's glory. Hence, they are one but that extension of Him, which is Jesus came to the world as a form of a man, making him the son of man, hence the son of the most high God, even as we're also the sons of most high God.

The conclusion is Jesus is a part of God, made manifested to us, hence he's God and he's also the son of God!

diadem10:


I've been following this thread but let me add my quota.

Jesus is an extension of God, God's image and His son.

What does this mean? As an extension of God, Jesus is a part of God, hence, he's also God himself however was made manifested in a form of human on earth, thereby representing the visible image of God. No wonder he told Philip that he was God because He's a part of God made manifested as a visible image of God that we can see! Don't forget we were made in the image of God, meaning we were made to like Jesus, who's the image of God. That's why Christian have to be like Jesus inside out.

Come to think of it, we were told Jesus is the Word of God, which was with him and the word being God himself, meaning the Word once lived in God but was made manifested in the form human, which is the very image of God that came to live with us here on earth. The scripture even says that He regard his Word more than His name, which means the Word (Jesus) is even regarded higher than the name of Jehovah, no wonder Christians often end their prayer with the name of Jesus, who's the only means to the Most high. He's simply God's head.

Hebrew 1:3 talked about Jesus being the brightness of God's glory and the express image of His person. What does this mean? It means Jesus completes God, he's simply an extension of God Himself. Jesus is the very form through which God express Himself! Remember, nothing was made without Jesus. Jesus is the completion of God's glory. Hence, they are one but that extension of Him, which is Jesus came to the world as a form of a man, making him the son of man, hence the son of the most high God, even as we're also the sons of most high God.

The conclusion is Jesus is a part of God, made manifested to us, hence he's God and he's also the son of God!

May God help us all..... Now what if someone now ask you that since Christian or godly people are referred to as sons of God and it's obvious that we are created and Jesus is called son of God doesn't that mean he was created ?? Since he was called son of God that's my question you can answer when you Free

Ferisidowu:



May God help us all..... Now what if someone now ask you that since Christian or godly people are referred to as sons of God and it's obvious that we are created and Jesus is called son of God doesn't that mean he was created ?? Since he was called son of God that's my question you can answer when you Free

Remember that Jesus is referred as the First, the beginning. He's the visible image of God, through which we were created, even as God asked that let's create Man in "our" own image, thereby telling us tha He wasn't alone.

Now to your question. Like I stated earlier, Jesus is an extension of God (a part of God) but when he was made to come in the form of man to this earth, he became the begotten son of God! That's why the scripture says anyone who says Jesus didn't come in a human form to the world (or that he isn't the begotten son of God) he's an antichrist!

olamkas:

Do not think I will dodge your questions but it never sound scholarly to me you've portrayed yourself so far. You already sound to have the seed of hatred in your heart which I have no bid for. Do you think we separate between the Prophets in Islam? Read Qur'an ch 2 v 285. I may say not all your questions are in place.

Pardon me if I do not sound scholarly disciplined. I request that you, the crème of the elite on this thread edify me by answering my questions. I have no hate for Islam or any Muslim. Kindly answer the questions that are in place first then we will later discuss how we can align the others to formation.

olamkas:

I will answer your questions when I have the time because I'm not a full timer like you. This is week day.

Okay, Sir. Just take your time for no one is in a hurry. Though, as a full-timer, I see you online on Nairaland spending equally the amount of time that I do but I understand that you are busy. I am also engaged during the week so I know how it feels to be busy.

My brother, thanks for the compliment. I do accept that this is a forum where people get on to share their views. I cannot force my opinions on you and vice versa. We only share and learn as well. I understand that it is not easy to change one's belief especially when he has held it all his life.
In a nutshell, there is no trophy to be won at the end of the day, so why should I go that low as to trading insults to denigrate strangers that may turn out to be my own relatives?
Possibly, some people have insulted their uncles on Nairaland. We only know our Monikers and you might even be my boss or neighbour.
This is a religion section and I suppose all visitors here are either "religious" or have interests in religion. Surprisingly, you see people quoting the Bible or Koran and in the next sentence they vomit strange words. You begin to wonder if they actually read the text that they quoted for others to read.

That's BTW, I did ask some questions in my previous posts. You may reply to them. I will be waiting to read from you. Though, do not copy and paste cos it doesn't always align.

Ferisidowu:
. Hmmm at this point I'm perplexed please embolden the part where I wrote that I support modalism.....

Anyway if it wasn't clear through the text I'm OFFICIALLY SAYING IT THAT IM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE MODALIST VIEW .....

BESIDES I don't know what it is with the watch out .... You have read my posts .....


I need you to give a post in support of your view ... I'd gladly read it .......

Also if we can't respect ourselves what are we Christians for.... I still enjoy the way lovingjehovah chats and show his objections


If we can't respect ourselves the thread is uncalled for ......


My resolution is make a post let's read and also make our objections it's like a debate and we are trying to pass our views to one another .....


I'm not saying you should accept my posts ..... But yet you should also help me with a comprehensive post .......

If there wouldn't be respect among ourselves then this conversation is over .........

As for lovingjehovah pls if you have any question from my posts you can ask and I'd love an excerpt from you if you less busy. I appreciate your maturity and respect ...
...

diadem10:


I've been following this thread but let me add my quota.

Jesus is an extension of God, God's image and His son.

What does this mean? As an extension of God, Jesus is a part of God, hence, he's also God himself however was made manifested in a form of human on earth, thereby representing the visible image of God. No wonder he told Philip that he was God because He's a part of God made manifested as a visible image of God that we can see! Don't forget we were made in the image of God, meaning we were made to like Jesus, who's the image of God. That's why Christian have to be like Jesus inside out.

Come to think of it, we were told Jesus is the Word of God, which was with him and the word being God himself, meaning the Word once lived in God but was made manifested in the form human, which is the very image of God that came to live with us here on earth. The scripture even says that He regard his Word more than His name, which means the Word (Jesus) is even regarded higher than the name of Jehovah, no wonder Christians often end their prayer with the name of Jesus, who's the only means to the Most high. He's simply God's head.

Hebrew 1:3 talked about Jesus being the brightness of God's glory and the express image of His person. What does this mean? It means Jesus completes God, he's simply an extension of God Himself. Jesus is the very form through which God express Himself! Remember, nothing was made without Jesus. Jesus is the completion of God's glory. Hence, they are one but that extension of Him, which is Jesus came to the world as a form of a man, making him the son of man, hence the son of the most high God, even as we're also the sons of most high God.

The conclusion is Jesus is a part of God, made manifested to us, hence he's God and he's also the son of God!

1 Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Maamin:


1 Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Sorry, I meant Jesus Christ is the fullness of Godhead.

diadem10:

Sorry, I meant Jesus Christ is the fullness of Godhead.

Is there a Bible verse that supports this?
Fullness of??
Godhead