God has a god.

[Checkpoint]

Scriptures tell us that God the Father is the God of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Anyone who has a god is not, by definition, God.

Therefore, Jesus Christ is not the one true God.

God the Father has no god.

He is therefore, by definition, God Himself, the only true God.

What say you?

Relevant scriptures

Psalm 45:7;Hebrews 1:9

You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Mark 15:34

And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema
sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

2 Corinthians 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,

Ephesians 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms.

Colossians 1:3

We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

1 Peter 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By His great mercy, He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 303 by brianbbs67]

Good Evening Brian,

It says in 1Co 3:16-17 We are the Temple of God If we have God's Spirit dwelling in us. Christ had the Spirit of God in Him without measure.

He came here as a man, the second Adam, to do what Adam failed to do which was qualify for rulership of this world, to replace Satan from off the throne. Adam did not resist Satan. Christ, as the second Adam, was able to overcome the flesh and sin, thereby qualifying, in Adam's place, as a man, to rule the Earth... as man was first created to do. But Hebrews says he divested himself of his previous place in Heaven as a God Being... who had existed with God the Father from the beginning (John 1). But as a man, He was completely dependent upon God's Spirit to overcome Satan in complete submission to God. It was the missing ingredient in Adam. It was the missing ingredient in the Children of Israel. (Deu_5:29  O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!)

Soj

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 303 by brianbbs67]

Good Evening Brian,

It says in 1Co 3:16-17 We are the Temple of God If we have God's Spirit dwelling in us. Christ had the Spirit of God in Him without measure.

He came here as a man, the second Adam, to do what Adam failed to do which was qualify for rulership of this world, to replace Satan from off the throne. Adam did not resist Satan. Christ, as the second Adam, was able to overcome the flesh and sin, thereby qualifying, in Adam's place, as a man, to rule the Earth... as man was first created to do. But Hebrews says he divested himself of his previous place in Heaven as a God Being... who had existed with God the Father from the beginning (John 1). But as a man, He was completely dependent upon God's Spirit to overcome Satan in complete submission to God. It was the missing ingredient in Adam. It was the missing ingredient in the Children of Israel. (Deu_5:29  O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!)

Soj

That sounds exactly like what I believe. Yet you differ with Jehovah's Witnesses....Would you remind me of what you reject about what they teach?

[PinSeeker]

I, for one, would not concede at all that Satan might be working through us.

So Jehovah's Witnesses are impervious to sin? To deception by the Deceiver? The Evil One loves working with the complacent, the over-confident.

I have examined everything I could find concerning John 1:1 and I am absolutely convinced that "the Word was God" is a spurious rendering.

Sure. I totally understand. But it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really. Not John 1:1 itself (or any other verse in his gospel) of course. But a person "hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest," as Simon and Garfunkel first sang over fifty years ago.

The King James translators and many since have followed the rules on translating Greek into English in most every other place in the Scriptures except John 1:1 and John 8:58. They show extreme bias. The only reason that those verses are so sloppy is that the translators already had their minds set on the belief that Jesus was God.

So says the WTS, who deliberately re-engineered their translation according to their view of the passages in question (and more). This is exactly what they did; they changed it to fit their own erroneous belief/narrative, that Jesus was/is not God. Scripture -- God's Word -- should shape belief, not the other way around.

And you know?.....you said to tigger that he really should not have engaged in independent study. Yet that is what most people tell us we should do, rather than listen to others.

I said nothing of the sort. I can see how that might be misconstrued, but no, I said, in echo of Proverbs, lean not on your own understanding. Independent study in and of itself is fine, but God gave us one another because we need one another.

You don't care to read in detail tigger's stuff, and you've heard it all. So you reject the excellent points he makes in his analyses.

Again, you're foisting something on me that I never said. What I said was, I have read his stuff, and it's no different than what I've heard many times over before. I don't read stuff I've read before. Well, sometimes I do, if it's really good; the Bible would qualify... And sometimes I do if it's something I need to hear over and over again, like... well, again, God's Word certainly qualifies.

All we can do is tell people the truth and leave it to them to take it or leave it. That's all we can do, and all Jehovah expects us to do.

But if you're erroneous about that "truth," I feel like that's a problem in Jehovah's eyes. Oh well. He'll deal with it in His time.

[onewithhim]

I, for one, would not concede at all that Satan might be working through us.

So Jehovah's Witnesses are impervious to sin? To deception by the Deceiver? The Evil One loves working with the complacent, the over-confident.

I have examined everything I could find concerning John 1:1 and I am absolutely convinced that "the Word was God" is a spurious rendering.

Sure. I totally understand. But it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really. Not John 1:1 itself (or any other verse in his gospel) of course. But a person "hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest," as Simon and Garfunkel first sang over fifty years ago.

The King James translators and many since have followed the rules on translating Greek into English in most every other place in the Scriptures except John 1:1 and John 8:58. They show extreme bias. The only reason that those verses are so sloppy is that the translators already had their minds set on the belief that Jesus was God.

So says the WTS, who deliberately re-engineered their translation according to their view of the passages in question (and more). This is exactly what they did; they changed it to fit their own erroneous belief/narrative, that Jesus was/is not God. Scripture -- God's Word -- should shape belief, not the other way around.

And you know?.....you said to tigger that he really should not have engaged in independent study. Yet that is what most people tell us we should do, rather than listen to others.

I said nothing of the sort. I can see how that might be misconstrued, but no, I said, in echo of Proverbs, lean not on your own understanding. Independent study in and of itself is fine, but God gave us one another because we need one another.

You don't care to read in detail tigger's stuff, and you've heard it all. So you reject the excellent points he makes in his analyses.

Again, you're foisting something on me that I never said. What I said was, I have read his stuff, and it's no different than what I've heard many times over before. I don't read stuff I've read before. Well, sometimes I do, if it's really good; the Bible would qualify... And sometimes I do if it's something I need to hear over and over again, like... well, again, God's Word certainly qualifies.

All we can do is tell people the truth and leave it to them to take it or leave it. That's all we can do, and all Jehovah expects us to do.

But if you're erroneous about that "truth," I feel like that's a problem in Jehovah's eyes. Oh well. He'll deal with it in His time.

1) Of course we sin as individuals, but not deliberately, and we don't make a practice of gross sins or any kind of sin that we can have control over. I wouldn't say we are complacent or over-confident. We are cognizant of Satan's designs. (2 Corinthians 2:11)

2) It's not that I hear what I want to hear and disregard everything else. I was once very much involved in Trinitarian churches---Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, non-denominational evangelistic, and I studied Mormons, Pentecostals, Christian Scientists, B'Hai, Episcopalians, and Catholics. I did a term paper in college on Jesus being God. I even changed wording in one verse and typed "God" instead of "Son of God." I was gung-ho Trinitarian. So no, I didn't WANT to see that Jesus was not God.

3) No, the WT didn't say what I wrote about the translation of John 1:1. Those were MY words, and I came to those conclusions on my own, with much scrutiny and thought. The WT just happens to agree with me. And let me say, the WT did not change the scriptures to fit their point of view. I have compared dozens of versions of the Bible, and read commentaries by scholars of every color, and I came to see that the New World Translation is, in fact, the most accurate version available today. The WT was aiming for a reliable, accurate version, and I believe that they achieved that. Your trinitarian brethren who translated the various versions of the Bible are the ones who have chopped up the verses to agree with THEIR beliefs. It is ironic that you and others blast JWs for doing exactly what you (plural) are doing. And in spite of the fact that there are so MANY verses that stare you in the face that show clearly that Jesus is NOT God.

4) I agree that we need one another, and it is faith-strengthening to get together to build each other up.

5) You say that God's Word qualifies to be read over and over, and I agree with that. I am trying to kindly show people that it is important which version they read and take as the whole truth. I love the KJV! I love to quote from it. However, I realize that it is flawed, and certain Scriptures are translated badly. The King was Protestant and thus a Trinitarian, so the translating committee wanted to bend the verses as much as they could to agree with the trinitarian POV. John 1:1 and John 8:58 are two glaring examples of a messy translation, not adhering to the rules of translation. There are many others also, where there has been an inserting or leaving out of commas and even periods where they would make a difference in the understanding. In many cases it would have been better to leave out all punctuation, just as the original Greek has none.

[PinSeeker]

Of course we sin as individuals, but not deliberately, and we don't make a practice of gross sins or any kind of sin that we can have control over. I wouldn't say we are complacent or over-confident. We are cognizant of Satan's designs. (2 Corinthians 2:11)

But you are still susceptible to deception. If you think you're not, I'm sure Satan would be glad to know that.

I was gung-ho Trinitarian.

I would advise reversing course.

The WT just happens to agree with me.

Ah, so you're THEIR authority. I see.

...the WT did not change the scriptures to fit their point of view.

They most certainly did.

Your trinitarian brethren who translated the various versions of the Bible are the ones who have chopped up the verses to agree with THEIR beliefs.

Nope. "Trinitarian" or not, Scripture clearly teaches that One God exists in three distinct Persons. In like manner, there are many who say Jesus not the only way to God, but the only "exclusivity" Christians claim is the exclusivity Jesus claimed for Himself. In both cases, what God says about Himself is true.

...there are so MANY verses that stare you in the face that show clearly that Jesus is NOT God.

There is nary a one. As I've said, there are plenty of examples that speak of Jesus in His humanity and as a man, but they do absolutely nothing in the way of negating the fact that He is God. He condescended to us for the purpose of reconciling us -- redeeming us -- to the Father. No one except God is qualified to do this. As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of verses/passages that speak to His status as God (the Son). You do know He commanded nature itself (calmed the wind and the waves), right (Matthew 8:24-27)? Who else could do that other than God Himself?

I love the KJV! I love to quote from it.

See, I don't. Not because it's "bad," or wrong, but it's easily misunderstood today because the language is antiquated and easily misunderstood in a good number of places. I prefer the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV.

The King was Protestant and thus a Trinitarian, so the translating committee wanted to bend the verses as much as they could to agree with the trinitarian POV.

We have overwhelming evidence that the Bible we have today is exactly the same as it was in the first century:

• "...the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation. Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382–405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150–250; most of the copies are from the 400s). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)." (J.P. Moreland https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible ... -testament)

Grace and peace to you, onewithhim.

[onewithhim]

Of course we sin as individuals, but not deliberately, and we don't make a practice of gross sins or any kind of sin that we can have control over. I wouldn't say we are complacent or over-confident. We are cognizant of Satan's designs. (2 Corinthians 2:11)

But you are still susceptible to deception. If you think you're not, I'm sure Satan would be glad to know that.

I was gung-ho Trinitarian.

I would advise reversing course.

The WT just happens to agree with me.

Ah, so you're THEIR authority. I see.

...the WT did not change the scriptures to fit their point of view.

They most certainly did.

Your trinitarian brethren who translated the various versions of the Bible are the ones who have chopped up the verses to agree with THEIR beliefs.

Nope. "Trinitarian" or not, Scripture clearly teaches that One God exists in three distinct Persons. In like manner, there are many who say Jesus not the only way to God, but the only "exclusivity" Christians claim is the exclusivity Jesus claimed for Himself. In both cases, what God says about Himself is true.

...there are so MANY verses that stare you in the face that show clearly that Jesus is NOT God.

There is nary a one. As I've said, there are plenty of examples that speak of Jesus in His humanity and as a man, but they do absolutely nothing in the way of negating the fact that He is God. He condescended to us for the purpose of reconciling us -- redeeming us -- to the Father. No one except God is qualified to do this. As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of verses/passages that speak to His status as God (the Son). You do know He commanded nature itself (calmed the wind and the waves), right (Matthew 8:24-27)? Who else could do that other than God Himself?

I love the KJV! I love to quote from it.

See, I don't. Not because it's "bad," or wrong, but it's easily misunderstood today because the language is antiquated and easily misunderstood in a good number of places. I prefer the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV.

The King was Protestant and thus a Trinitarian, so the translating committee wanted to bend the verses as much as they could to agree with the trinitarian POV.

We have overwhelming evidence that the Bible we have today is exactly the same as it was in the first century:

• "...the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation. Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382–405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150–250; most of the copies are from the 400s). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)." (J.P. Moreland https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible ... -testament)

Grace and peace to you, onewithhim.

1) Have I given any kind of indication that I would NOT be susceptible to Satan's attacks? I certainly am, and that's why I pray every day for Jehovah to protect me and my family. We have to "put on the complete suit of armour from God," and we work every day to do that (Ephesians 6:11,12).

2) The Scriptures do NOT "clearly teach" that God exists in three Persons. You set forth those "clear" Scriptures and we'll see how clear they are. The Scriptures never said that God had to come down here. Show me where the Scriptures say that.

3) Your view of Jesus is strange. He constantly said that the Father (Jehovah) GAVE him the power that he, Jesus, had. He said that he LEARNED everything he knew from watching the Father. That was when he was in heaven! So, if Jehovah gave him power, then he could calm the wind and waves and also heal people, with the power he RECEIVED from the Father. He didn't need to be God. Peter raised the dead. Was HE also God?? Only God can do that!

4) Well you must be a lot younger than I. I grew up with the KJV. Now I will use any version. My favorites are the NWT, the NASB, the NAB, Young's Literal Translation, and the 21st Century New Testament.

5) Yes the Bible we have today is like the earliest manuscripts that have been found. However, there are corruptions that have been detected, such as John 1:1, John 8:58, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, Philippians 2:6, and many more. And it's not the WT that is saying this! Check out Bart Ehrman ("The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture") and Jason BeDuhn ("Truth in Translation"). Neither are particularly religious and speak for no religious denomination.



.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 311 by onewithhim]

There are some similarities between us. I went to a Kingdom Hall for a few months or so. It's not my intent to pick anyone's religion apart. Over my lifetime, I've visited many churches and faiths... and doctrines... philosophies.

My current beliefs are able to answer all of life's questions and makes complete sense of the Bible. Prior to that, nothing else ever could.

I heard the truth... and I've grabbed hold of it. I know it is because I've seen how certain God's word is. No one else could ever show me that. Maybe it comes of all these years in the Show-me state.

Soj

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 311 by onewithhim]

There are some similarities between us. I went to a Kingdom Hall for a few months or so. It's not my intent to pick anyone's religion apart. Over my lifetime, I've visited many churches and faiths... and doctrines... philosophies.

My current beliefs are able to answer all of life's questions and makes complete sense of the Bible. Prior to that, nothing else ever could.

I heard the truth... and I've grabbed hold of it. I know it is because I've seen how certain God's word is. No one else could ever show me that. Maybe it comes of all these years in the Show-me state.

Soj

I am guessing, so correct me if wrong. You believe , as I do, that we should follow what Jesus taught, not what others think Paul said? That Hebraic view harmonizes it all for me.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 317 by brianbbs67]

I am guessing, so correct me if wrong. You believe , as I do, that we should follow what Jesus taught, not what others think Paul said? That Hebraic view harmonizes it all for me.

Paul kept the Sabbath. He met with Gentiles on the Sabbath. 1 Corinthians is full of references to Passover and The days of Unleavened Bread, in a letter written to a bunch of NONJews. Paul kept God's law. He taught it, clearly, else he wold not taught Gentiles ON THE SABBATH...Hurri ed x back to keep the Feast, gone through a cleansing ritual in the temple... etc.

God's plan for mankind is based on law. You cannot have love without law. People rage against it, but the only Laws they really fight against are the ones where we express our love to God. The rest of them, they have to keep after some fashion just to stay out of prison.

Soj

[PinSeeker]

The Scriptures do NOT "clearly teach" that God exists in three Persons.

I know your opinion very well, and I respect it. But they clearly do.

Peter raised the dead. Was HE also God?? Only God can do that!

Well that's just it; God -- not Peter -- did it. Peter even acknowledged that, as we see explicitly in Acts 9:34 (which is a healing) and implicitly in Acts 9:40 (where he prays before raising Tabitha/Dorcas.

The age of the apostles, onewithhim, was a one-time period in which God did extraordinary miracles in His power through those men (the apostles), of whom Peter was one. We see this over and over again in the gospels and Acts (Matthew 10:1, Mark 3:15, Mark 6:7, Mark 16:17, Luke 9:1-2, Luke 10:9, Luke 10:17, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:43, Acts 5:12-16, and Acts 19:11, among others). They all acknowledged God's power in the miracles they performed. So did Peter in the passage in Acts 9 that you cite, as I said. Again, there are actually two miracles that Paul peforms in that passage, the first being that he heals Aeneus -- which Peter directly attributes to Jesus and not himself in verse 34 -- and the other where he raises Tabitha (in Greek, Dorcas) -- and there Peter prays before raising her. In both cases, God's power, not Peter's is acknowledged.

Jesus, however, in the miracles He performed, ascribed that power to Himself. He called on no one. He did it in His own power. And, Matthew 8 (also found in Mark 4) is but one example showing His command over nature itself.

...you must be a lot younger than I.

LOL! Maybe... But probably not...

Check out Bart Ehrman ("The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture") and Jason BeDuhn ("Truth in Translation"). Neither are particularly religious and speak for no religious denomination.

I know quite a lot about these two men and have read many of their works. It is interesting that you say "neither are particularly religious." That's true, but do you somehow think that necessarily means they are impervious to bias themselves? Surely not. Think about it -- unbelievers claiming bias. It's thought-provoking, isn't it?

Grace and peace to you, onewithhim.