03 Jun 13
Robbie & Galveston
What are your thoughts on this verse. Robbie you have indicated that Jesus was lower than God, this verse would seem to indicate that (God, Father, Jesus) are all the same... If I interpret it correctly. Comments?
Isaiah 9:6
For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace
03 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by kd2aczplease tell me what the Hebrew word for mighty god is and what the Hebrew word for Almighty God is. We have no problem with Christ being termed a god, or a divine being, after all, there are many gods in scripture who are not Almighty God, even Satan is termed a god of the system. Perhaps you will tell us also, the meaning of this verse,
Robbie & Galveston
What are your thoughts on this verse. Robbie you have indicated that Jesus was lower than God, this verse would seem to indicate that (God, Father, Jesus) are all the same... If I interpret it correctly. Comments?
Isaiah 9:6
For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come t ...[text shortened]... er. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace
(Philippians 2:5, 6) Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell what does this verse say to you? How do you interpret?
please tell me what the Hebrew word for mighty god is and what the Hebrew word for Almighty God is. We have no problem with Christ being termed a god, or a divine being, after all, there are many gods in scripture who are not Almighty God, even Satan is termed a God of the system. Perhaos you will tell us also, the meaning of this verse,
(Phili ...[text shortened]... sting in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by kd2aczConsider the endearing expression “Eternal Father.” As such, Jesus has the power and authority—as well as the desire—to give obedient humans the prospect of eternal life on earth by the merit of his ransom sacrifice. This means that they will finally be released from sin and imperfection inherited from the sinful first man, Adam. (Matthew 20:28; Romans 5:12; 6:23)
Well what does this verse say to you? How do you interpret?
Christ will also apply his God-given authority to bring back to life many who have died.—John 11:25, 26.
When on earth, Jesus proved to be the “Wonderful Counselor.” Because of his knowledge of God’s Word and his extraordinary understanding of human nature, Jesus knew how to solve the problems of daily life. Since his enthronement in heaven, Christ continues to be the “Wonderful Counselor,” serving as the principal figure in Jehovah’s channel of communication to mankind. Jesus’ counsel, recorded in the Bible, is always wise and flawless. Knowing and believing this can lead you to a life free of uncertainty and paralyzing fear.
Isaiah 9:6 also identifies Jesus as the “Prince of Peace.” In that capacity, Christ will soon use his power to remove all inequality—political, social, and economic. How? By bringing mankind under the one peaceful rule of the Messianic Kingdom.—Daniel 2:44.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo am I to understand you correctly. you agree with the verse that Jesus is equal to the Father? Jesus is all that is listed in verse 6?
Consider the endearing expression “Eternal Father.” As such, Jesus has the power and authority—as well as the desire—to give obedient humans the prospect of eternal life on earth by the merit of his ransom sacrifice. This means that they will finally be released from sin and imperfection inherited from the sinful first man, Adam. (Matthew 20:28; Roma ...[text shortened]... mic. How? By bringing mankind under the one peaceful rule of the Messianic Kingdom.—Daniel 2:44.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by kd2aczLook, I generally disagree with Robbie (not always, though). But he does not agree that Jesus is “equal to the Father”. And I’m not sure that that is a requirement of trinitarianism, under the original Nicene Creed (before the introduction of the filioque by the Western church). And he is much too bright to fall for semantic entrapment (and, again, I generally disagree with him).
So am I to understand you correctly. you agree with the verse that Jesus is equal to the Father? Jesus is all that is listed in verse 6?
I think his treatment of “the Father” is rather well done here, and he is likely to lambaste you with it.
For the record, I was always a trinitarian Christian (in my “true Christian™” days); and Robbie and I disagree over the validity of that—though I recognize his counter-position as also scripturally defensible (which means that I am sometimes arguing with both Robbie and his other opponents).
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdthankyou.
Look, [b]I generally disagree with Robbie (not always, though). But he does not agree that Jesus is “equal to the Father”. And I’m not sure that that is a requirement of trinitarianism, under the original Nicene Creed (before the introduction of the filioque by the Western church). And he is much too bright to fall for semantic ent ...[text shortened]... y defensible (which means that I am sometimes arguing with both Robbie and his other opponents).[/b]
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI’ve been in too many wars on here. Why do the same wars need to be revisited—from the same old starting points!!—as before? I am not the chess-player that you are, but—hey!—does this look like the Caro-Kann again? Just like it did the last time ‘round?
thankyou.
Not kd’s fault. I’ve just been here too long . . .
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdLol, yes that damnable Caro Kann! 😀
I’ve been in too many wars on here. Why do the same wars need to be revisited—from the same old starting points!!—as before? I am not the chess-player that you are, but—hey!—does this look like the Caro-Kann again? Just like it did the last time ‘round?
Not kd’s fault. I’ve just been here too long . . .
hope damnable is not a cuss word.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdWell Visted. thank you for your comments on Robbie's behalf, I am sure you made him proud! My motivation here in asking questions is to seek clarity from someone who comes across as an 'authority' in light of inconsistencies that I see a) from JW on this forum. b) informational sources from the Internet and. different websites.
Look, [b]I generally disagree with Robbie (not always, though). But he does not agree that Jesus is “equal to the Father”. And I’m not sure that that is a requirement of trinitarianism, under the original Nicene Creed (before the introduction of the filioque by the Western church). And he is much too bright to fall for semantic ent ...[text shortened]... y defensible (which means that I am sometimes arguing with both Robbie and his other opponents).[/b]
The verse I posted was from NWT and I was seeking the JW understanding. It seems to me that direct questions posed to JW are met with the dance around the question as the answer, its typical judging by some of the comments of other posters. Galveston made a statement in another thread about asking questions to ya'll JW if there was a question, just talk I guess. I had a question I asked.
As I stated before I am wanting to understand a few things about what the JW believe as I have family members that are JW and I know nothing about the faith. I have no other place to find out such things through personal interchange and after all this.. that is still the case.
You need not worry about any lambasting, I am a big boy. The truth is not had by who makes the better argument, but is revealed by God himself. No worries though, I will find out what I am after elsewhere. I do appreciate your comments, but it was unnecessary. Robbie, Galveston my apologies for any irritation, I will not press JW on your doctrine further, my questions are not personal but general in nature and in asking there seems to be an issue.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdBut the JWs have just revived the old Arian heresay. That view of Jesus has already been dealt with by the church centuries ago and dismissed. So I see no need for us to go over it again.
Look, [b]I generally disagree with Robbie (not always, though). But he does not agree that Jesus is “equal to the Father”. And I’m not sure that that is a requirement of trinitarianism, under the original Nicene Creed (before the introduction of the filioque by the Western church). And he is much too bright to fall for semantic ent ...[text shortened]... y defensible (which means that I am sometimes arguing with both Robbie and his other opponents).[/b]
The Instructor
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by kd2aczYou didn't already know Robbie's (and Gal's) position on Jesus and the Father? It seems that clearly, you were attempting to entrap them with that verse--as if they'd never considered it before.
Well Visted. thank you for your comments on Robbie's behalf, I am sure you made him proud! My motivation here in asking questions is to seek clarity from someone who comes across as an 'authority' in light of inconsistencies that I see a) from JW on this forum. b) informational sources from the Internet and. different websites.
The verse I posted was fro ...[text shortened]... y questions are not personal but general in nature and in asking there seems to be an issue.
However, as I say--no fault on your part. Perhaps you haven't been here long enough. I've just been at this too long . . . Lay the fault on me.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, well--who decides what is a heresy? Always the opposing side. Historically, Athanasius might have lost. The monophysite churches labelled the Chalcedonians heretics. In 1054, the eastern and western churches each declared the other to be heretics. Maybe you're a heretic--according to whose pronouncement?
But the JWs have just revived the old Arian heresay. That view of Jesus has already been dealt with by the church centuries ago and dismissed. So I see no need for us to go over it again.
The Instructor
Orthodoxy versus heterodoxy/heresy is always an instutional pronouncement.
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by kd2aczLet me put it this way. The orthodox Christian churches have declared the Jehovah's Witnesses a heretical cult after the order of the Arians of old.
Well Visted. thank you for your comments on Robbie's behalf, I am sure you made him proud! My motivation here in asking questions is to seek clarity from someone who comes across as an 'authority' in light of inconsistencies that I see a) from JW on this forum. b) informational sources from the Internet and. different websites.
The verse I posted was fro ...[text shortened]... y questions are not personal but general in nature and in asking there seems to be an issue.
http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/cults-and-heresies
The Instructor
03 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, do you think the filioque is a heresy?
Let me put it this way. The orthodox Christian churches have declared the Jehovah's Witnesses a heretical cult after the order of the Arians of old.
http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/cults-and-heresies
The Instructor
EDIT: The point is that various churches have declared a lot of things heretical over the centuries. Although I am not a sola scripturist, and have some regard for church tradition, I am enough of a protestant to not adhere to past institutional pronouncements just because they were pronounced.