Questions about Jesus and JW’s

[MissKate13]

1. Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” This is how the NWT reads (John 1:1).

Do JW’s believe Jesus was a true or false god?

2. JW’s say Jesus is a created being.

When was Jesus (capital or lower case g) created?

I look forward to your responses to one or both questions.

MissKate13

[Capbook]

Your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 differ from JFB exegesis, they understand Jesus is co-equal with the Father.

I gave no interpretation. I read the Bible as it says. There is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 15:28 to mean something else that what it plainly says.
JFB has no authority over my understanding of the Bible. Thus I do not care how JFB understands anything. JFB is the lord over your faith, not mine.

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

We could go back to 1 Cor 15:28, if you grant my request.

LOL like some kind of ransom demand? As 1 Cor 15:28 is an answer concerning "questions about Jesus and JWs" and you're not willing to continue, I'll just accept your surrender since you're not willing to continue.

We've talked a little bit of 1 Cor 15:8, can't we just discuss a little bit of Romans 9:5 or you're just evading it.

[2timothy316]

I gave no interpretation. I read the Bible as it says. There is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 15:28 to mean something else that what it plainly says.
JFB has no authority over my understanding of the Bible. Thus I do not care how JFB understands anything. JFB is the lord over your faith, not mine.

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

We could go back to 1 Cor 15:28, if you grant my request.

LOL like some kind of ransom demand? As 1 Cor 15:28 is an answer concerning "questions about Jesus and JWs" and you're not willing to continue, I'll just accept your surrender since you're not willing to continue.

We've talked a little bit of 1 Cor 15:8, can't we just discuss a little bit of Romans 9:5 or you're just evading it.

LOL and now you're accusing ME of evading? This is too much! If you're not to face the music of reading comprehension vs interpretation on this scripture why move on to another scripture were your record suggests you're going to abandon the argument again? Where you move on to yet another scripture and then another. Why can't you face it that I'm not interpreting 1 Cor 15:28? I quoted it only and let you read it as it is and you don't accept it as it is. Just admit that I gave no interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 and then we will talk about Ro 9:5.

[2timothy316]

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

We could go back to 1 Cor 15:28, if you grant my request.

LOL like some kind of ransom demand? As 1 Cor 15:28 is an answer concerning "questions about Jesus and JWs" and you're not willing to continue, I'll just accept your surrender since you're not willing to continue.

We've talked a little bit of 1 Cor 15:8, can't we just discuss a little bit of Romans 9:5 or you're just evading it.

LOL and now you're accusing ME of evading? This is too much! If you're not to face the music of reading comprehension vs interpretation on this scripture why move on to another scripture were your record suggests you're going to abandon the argument again? Where you move on to yet another scripture and then another. Why can't you face it that I'm not interpreting 1 Cor 15:28? I quoted it only and let you read it as it is and you don't accept it as it is. Just admit that I gave no interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 and then we will talk about Ro 9:5.

3 Days with no reply...and I'm evading? It is crucial that 1 Cor 15:8 be resolved before Rom 9:5 is resolved. Specifically since Paul wrote both.

[onewithhim]

It is more acceptable if we let the Bible interpret itself.
And also let lexicons, translations and commentaries assist for further study.

Agreed. That's what Jehovahs Witnesses do, we we let the Bible interpret itself and we also let lexicons, translations and commentaries assist for further study. We still come to a different interpretation.



JW

Do commentaries assist you?
We differs in interpretation maybe because you have your own exclusive Bible translation.
"The New World Translation of the Bible is Jehovah's Witnesses own translation, no other religious group uses this Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses make very little use of other Bibles." (quote online)

Do you know why nobody else uses the NWT? Because Jehovah's name is used throughout the Scriptures in the places that other versions have put "LORD." Other people don't want to be affiliated with the name of God, so they prefer versions of the Bible that leave it out (when it was in there in the first place!). When someone says "Jehovah," the person they are speaking to immediately connects them to Jehovah's Witnesses. Imagine, because a group of people want to leave God's name where it was supposed to be, originally, and use His name, they are castigated. What's wrong with that picture?

[onewithhim]

No it could not be because we accept and reference many different translations.

So you agree with Steven T. Byington?

Is Byington a bible reference or a translation?

Steven Tracy Byington (birthname Stephen) (December 10, 1869 – October 12, 1957) was a noted intellectual, translator. Whom have commented about your translation.

I have a commentary for you by Jason David BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christians Origins from Harvard University Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical and Manichaean Studies, winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.

"Most of the differences of the other translations are due to the greater accuracy of the NWT as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers." (Truth in Translation, p.165.)

[onewithhim]

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

We could go back to 1 Cor 15:28, if you grant my request.

LOL like some kind of ransom demand? As 1 Cor 15:28 is an answer concerning "questions about Jesus and JWs" and you're not willing to continue, I'll just accept your surrender since you're not willing to continue.

We've talked a little bit of 1 Cor 15:8, can't we just discuss a little bit of Romans 9:5 or you're just evading it.

LOL and now you're accusing ME of evading? This is too much! If you're not to face the music of reading comprehension vs interpretation on this scripture why move on to another scripture were your record suggests you're going to abandon the argument again? Where you move on to yet another scripture and then another. Why can't you face it that I'm not interpreting 1 Cor 15:28? I quoted it only and let you read it as it is and you don't accept it as it is. Just admit that I gave no interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 and then we will talk about Ro 9:5.

I thought we have already talked about Romans 9:5. I know I posted a thorough comment on it on one of these threads, in answer to Capbook. I listed a great many Bible versions that do NOT say that "Jesus is God over all." Is Capbook just ignoring my post? Maybe if he reads this he can answer that. Most Bible versions say, in effect, "to whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen." God and Christ are two individuals here in this verse, and it is God who is blessed, not Christ in this case.

[onewithhim]

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

We could go back to 1 Cor 15:28, if you grant my request.

LOL like some kind of ransom demand? As 1 Cor 15:28 is an answer concerning "questions about Jesus and JWs" and you're not willing to continue, I'll just accept your surrender since you're not willing to continue.

We've talked a little bit of 1 Cor 15:8, can't we just discuss a little bit of Romans 9:5 or you're just evading it.

LOL and now you're accusing ME of evading? This is too much! If you're not to face the music of reading comprehension vs interpretation on this scripture why move on to another scripture were your record suggests you're going to abandon the argument again? Where you move on to yet another scripture and then another. Why can't you face it that I'm not interpreting 1 Cor 15:28? I quoted it only and let you read it as it is and you don't accept it as it is. Just admit that I gave no interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 and then we will talk about Ro 9:5.

3 Days with no reply...and I'm evading? It is crucial that 1 Cor 15:8 be resolved before Rom 9:5 is resolved. Specifically since Paul wrote both.

Can you read my post above? We have already talked about Romans 9:5. (I apologize, I keep thinking that I'm talking to Capbook when it's timothy that I seem to be addressing.)

[onewithhim]

1. Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “ a god” This is how the NWT reads (John 1:1).

"and the Word was a god" - The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Thomas Belsham, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcom New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

"and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

"and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

"and the Word was a god" - A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

"and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

"and the Word was a god" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

"and the Word was a god" - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine" - James Moffatt

Dr. J. D. BeDuhn "And the Word was a god " The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar supports this translation. - Truth in Translation , p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS

W. E. Vine John 1:1c is literally translated " ... a god was the Word" .- p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

C. H. Dod , director of the New English Bible project, : "A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, The Word was a god. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1cp. is and a god (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word - 54, (New Covenant section), Young' s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

Dr. William Barclay: "You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: the Word was a God ... - Ever yours, p. 205, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985

.

FURTHER RESEARCH : http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html

Yes, thank you!

[Capbook]

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

We could go back to 1 Cor 15:28, if you grant my request.

LOL like some kind of ransom demand? As 1 Cor 15:28 is an answer concerning "questions about Jesus and JWs" and you're not willing to continue, I'll just accept your surrender since you're not willing to continue.

We've talked a little bit of 1 Cor 15:8, can't we just discuss a little bit of Romans 9:5 or you're just evading it.

LOL and now you're accusing ME of evading? This is too much! If you're not to face the music of reading comprehension vs interpretation on this scripture why move on to another scripture were your record suggests you're going to abandon the argument again? Where you move on to yet another scripture and then another. Why can't you face it that I'm not interpreting 1 Cor 15:28? I quoted it only and let you read it as it is and you don't accept it as it is. Just admit that I gave no interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 and then we will talk about Ro 9:5.

Sorry, I lost to follow this thread, through context, as Jesus himself will be subjected to the Father who put all things in subjection under Jesus, this does not mean that Jesus is not the same state of being God with the Father. Romans 9:5 prove this.
Just like you and your son, your son is always under your subjection or authority, but that does not mean that your son in not the same state with you as human.

1Co 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
1Co 15:30 Why are we in danger every hour?
1Co 15:31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!

[JehovahsWitness]

Sorry, I lost to follow this thread, through context, as Jesus himself will be subjected to the Father who put all things in subjection under Jesus, this does not mean that Jesus is not the same state of being God with the Father.

If by "the same state if being " you mean YHWH the Father is a spirit , Jesus is a spirit and angels are spirits Agreed.