Jesus IS Jehovah

First sonship I really do appreciate all the time and work and effort you are doing here. That is commendable and I truly mean it. I appreciate all the other comments here too by others.
And by the time you've taken, it's clear you take your beliefs very seriously just as most here do. But does that in itself prove that what we believe is really the truth even though we would lay our life's down on it? No of course not.
So why do so many believe in the trinity and would also lay their life's down for it?
As I mentioned earlier a "truth" of anything in life that can be proven such as the sun comes up from one direction only and sets in one direction only' is a "truth". One may try to say no it doesn't and may claim to have the proof it doesn't, but is that the "truth"? No. A truth never changes.
If God/Jehovah says one thing about himself such as the passage where he purposely and deliberately said he is ( one) God, is that not a truth? Did he really mean a God with 3 different parts or personalities or abilities or functions, etc?
Again as I've said many times in the past one must prove scripture with scripture.
If the Bible later on had Jehovah correcting that first statement and said he was changing how he wants us to understand who he is then that would be a different issue. But no where in the Bible does that new idea ever come up.
So either he lied to us or he's having a good laugh at the mess the trinity has caused since he stated he was "one" God. If it is a joke then a lot of people have died in the past for not believing the trinity. Would he do that to us?
My experience with ones who believe in the trinity and I see it here is sometimes too many scriptures are quoted that really don't apply or as was stated here in this thread, are taken out of context.
Or one misunderstands what is being said in the Bible. For instance Jehovah, our creator and the creator of his first son Jesus, was many things to humans.
You mentioned that Jehovah was called "a shepherd" to his people. Of course he was. He was fully involved in all aspects of his people and was everything they needed and was just as a shepherd to them in all their days.
Now there was God's son who was exactly as the Bible says and that was the "firstborn of all creation". It is clear that he had not always existed as his Father Jehovah had or this statement in the bible would not be a "truth". Jesus had a beginning.
The Bible says God/Jehovah "became more and more fond" of this firstborn son
who was later named Jesus once on earth.
Jesus was born here on the earth and he stayed completely faithful to his Father Jehovah on every possible level that was asked of him even to death. He was even tempted by Satan who would have never tested Jehovah.
So Jesus was given many rewards because of his faithfulness and one of many was his Father promoting his son with many responsibilities and the greatest was to take over for his his Father Jehovah to be the now acting King, ruler, judge and Shepard of his Fathers people who will one day either go to heaven to rule with him or to be the subjects of that Kingdom here on earth.
So yes they have both been labeled Shepherds in the Bible, but that does not mean they are the same spirit being. Jehovah simply gave his son the privilege of doing some of his Fathers responsibilities because of Jehovah trusting him to do the same perfect job that he, Jehovah, would do. Jesus was also given immortality after he was raised to heaven after he left earth. He was not immortal like his Father has always been until he was given that ability after he returned to heaven.
So many names, terms, titles were given to both the father and the son in the Bible.
Jehovah never had to earn, so to say, his titles, but Jesus did many by proving his love for his father Jehovah. They are not the same spirit being. But they are very much the same in their plans for us humans just as a president and vice president should have for their government.

@galveston75 said
First sonship I really do appreciate all the time and work and effort you are doing here. That is commendable and I truly mean it. I appreciate all the other comments here too by others.
And by the time you've taken, it's clear you take your beliefs very seriously just as most here do. But does that in itself prove that what we believe is really the truth even though ...[text shortened]... n their plans for us humans just as a president and vice president should have for their government.

Tell them about your non-stock, non-profit corporation's customized Bible.

@sonship said
@divegeester
I think you are only adverse to copy and pasting because you lightly esteem the actual words of the Bible.

I think what is clear from your responses to my simple probing question to you, is that your doctrine of a god who is three persons make absolutely no sense when you make claims that two of these persons are the same.

Furthermore, you claim that I am “adverse to what is in the bible”. Well the doctrine and the word trinity is not mentioned in the bible, not once. It is man made.

Finally your church and indeed you, subscribe to the error that believing in this version of God is a “Must” for salvation.

@galveston75 said
First sonship I really do appreciate all the time and work and effort you are doing here. That is commendable and I truly mean it.

Any yet two days ago you were explaining how those doctrines expressed in here, which you “really do appreciate” and which are you believe are “truly commendable”, are the teachings of Satan.

@galveston75

Now there was God's son who was exactly as the Bible says and that was the "firstborn of all creation". It is clear that he had not always existed as his Father Jehovah had or this statement in the bible would not be a "truth". Jesus had a beginning.
The Bible says God/Jehovah "became more and more fond" of this firstborn son
who was later named Jesus once on earth.

The OP claim Jesus is Jehovah. I have not by any means finished demonstrating this. But I turn attention to this paragraph.

If John 1:1 states that the Word, the Logos WAS God, then as long as God was, exactly that long existed the Logos.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1,2)

That puts the nail coffin that there was God without the Word at any time in eternity. "The Word was God" .

The Word became flesh in John 1:14. In a sense of incarnation we can certainly say the man Jesus had a beginning. Yet He also did not. And the prophet Micah says that the One to become ruler in Israel who was born in Bethlehem has His goings forth from ETERNITY.

" ... O Bethlehem Ephrathah, ... from you there will come forth to Me H who is to be Ruler in Israel;

And His goings forth are from ancient times, Form the days of eternity." (see Micah 5:2)

Jehovah God is the One who inhabits eternity.

"For thus says the high and exalted One, Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy; ..." (Isaiah 57:15a)

Your NWT is in rebellion. And the teachers of it are in rebellion because you do not want to believe in the incarnation of God as a man.

If Proverbs is truly speaking about the Son of God being God's Wisdom, then it would not be that God CREATED Wisdom in the beginning. For how would God HAVE the wisdom to CREATE wisdom? That is if God from eternity had not Wisdom.

So Proverbs 8:22 says Jehovah POSSESSED this Wisdom. As long as God - so also the Wisdom of God - so also the Word - the Logos.

"Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, Before His works of old." (Prov. 8:22)

Christ being Firstborn of all creation is not the first created being God created. But He did become incarnated and joined Himself WITH creation. For He became a man. And without controversy "God created man ..." (See Genesis 1:26,27)

In that God became joined to His creation through incarnation He is off all created things the preeminent, FIRST, and topmost, central matter of all creation.

But in that Jehovah God incarnated to be a man, that man is an item of creation (Gen. 1:26,27) but on the other hand the Person Who incarnated as Jesus is God, with God and became flesh.

As eternal as God Himself is the Word and the Wisdom of God.
And as eternal as God Himself is the LIFE of God.

And the Word of Life is that LIFE which was the Father's life. How then could He not be from eternity?

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes. which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life

(And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us); (1 John 1:1,2)

This life, the Person is the uncreated and eternal life of the Father Himself.
The man Jesus is Jehovah God.

This truth your organization is in rebellion against. You need to receive Jesus as the God of eternity become a man in order to be in the fellowship that John wrote of with the Father and the Son.

"That which we have seen and heard we report also to you that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write that our joy may be made full." (1 John 1:3,4)

They beheld, they heard, the handled with their own hands the life of the Father - Jesus - Jehovah incarnated as a man.

@sonship

'The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God."

David A. Reed


(And the passages in the New Testament referring to the Logos were explained by Fausto Sozzini as relating to the foreknown work of Christ as the author of the 'new creation', not as relating to the "old" Genesis creation).

@divegeester said
Any yet two days ago you were explaining how those doctrines expressed in here, which you “really do appreciate” and which are you believe are “truly commendable”, are the teachings of Satan.

Perhaps you answer too quick and not read what I said. I did not say anything of the sort about the teaching of the trinity. I said I appreciated the time they took to explain themselves. Pay attention...

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@sonship

'The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and gramma ...[text shortened]... work of Christ as the author of the 'new creation', not as relating to the "old" Genesis creation).

Correct, and if the translator of a particular version of the Bible leaned in their belief to the trinity then deleting the letter "a" from that scripture can do a lot to promote the trinity.

@sonship said
@galveston75

[quote] Now there was God's son who was exactly as the Bible says and that was the "firstborn of all creation". It is clear that he had not always existed as his Father Jehovah had or this statement in the bible would not be a "truth". Jesus had a beginning.
The Bible says God/Jehovah "became more and more fond" of this firstborn son
who was later named Jes ...[text shortened]... eard, the handled with their own hands the life of the Father - Jesus - Jehovah incarnated as a man.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1,2)

Jesus was created and is called the "FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION". The bible is the history of God's creative time period, and not any kind of a historical record of anything before that.
Jesus was the first thing Jehovah created at the beginning of that creative time period. So yes Jesus was there from the beginning of the time his Father started to create.

@sonship said
@galveston75

[quote] Now there was God's son who was exactly as the Bible says and that was the "firstborn of all creation". It is clear that he had not always existed as his Father Jehovah had or this statement in the bible would not be a "truth". Jesus had a beginning.
The Bible says God/Jehovah "became more and more fond" of this firstborn son
who was later named Jes ...[text shortened]... eard, the handled with their own hands the life of the Father - Jesus - Jehovah incarnated as a man.

... O Bethlehem Ephrathah, ... from you there will come forth to Me H who is to be Ruler in Israel;

And His goings forth are from ancient times, Form the days of eternity." (see Micah 5:2)

You know I've looked up many other translations of the Bible and non so far has the term "from eternity". Perhaps your version suggest that Jesus is from eternity but that is really not correct, right? Maybe this is the one you choose because of it supposedly backing the trinity? Do a little more research.

@sonship said
@galveston75

[quote] Now there was God's son who was exactly as the Bible says and that was the "firstborn of all creation". It is clear that he had not always existed as his Father Jehovah had or this statement in the bible would not be a "truth". Jesus had a beginning.
The Bible says God/Jehovah "became more and more fond" of this firstborn son
who was later named Jes ...[text shortened]... eard, the handled with their own hands the life of the Father - Jesus - Jehovah incarnated as a man.

Jehovah God is the One who inhabits eternity.

"For thus says the high and exalted One, Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy; ..." (Isaiah 57:15a)

Yep, nothing wrong here. It says Jehovah and that is who it's talking about. No mention of Jesus here at all.

@sonship said
@galveston75

[quote] Now there was God's son who was exactly as the Bible says and that was the "firstborn of all creation". It is clear that he had not always existed as his Father Jehovah had or this statement in the bible would not be a "truth". Jesus had a beginning.
The Bible says God/Jehovah "became more and more fond" of this firstborn son
who was later named Jes ...[text shortened]... eard, the handled with their own hands the life of the Father - Jesus - Jehovah incarnated as a man.

"That which we have seen and heard we report also to you that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write that our joy may be made full." (1 John 1:3,4)

Do you really not see that you quote scriptures like this that actually damage your stand on the trinity? This says just the opposite of what you think it's saying..

1 John 1:2 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
2 The life appeared,
and we have seen it.
We are testifying to it
and announcing it to you —
eternal life!

He was with the Father,
and he appeared to us."


Please comment on this one scripture. No comments on anything else but this one scripture.
Does it say he is the Father? No it doesn't. What does it say? This is Jesus it is speaking of and who is he with? Is he with himself? If they were the same being wouldn't it say he was with himself or something silly like that? If they are the same, where is the holy spirit? It is not mentioned here at all. Why not? It seems to be left out of many scriptures where it speaks of the Father and the son.
Again I would like a comment on this scripture...................................

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

(And the passages in the New Testament referring to the Logos were explained by Fausto Sozzini as relating to the foreknown work of Christ as the author of the 'new creation', not as relating to the "old" Genesis creation).

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being." (John 1:3)

This is clearly related to the old creation - the creation of all that is said to have been created in Genesis 1:1. That is the old creation.

Now this next verse would refer to the time AFTER the resurrection of Christ. And after the resurrection of Christ is the new creation.

"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (v.4)

I would agree that this is related to Christ being the Head of the church, which is the spearhead of the new creation. Colossians affirms that the church born of the resurrection of Christ is that new creation.

"And He is the Head of the Body, the church, He is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, ..." (Col. 1:18)

The old creation is man without God indwelling him.
The new creation - the church - the Body of Christ is the man WITH the indwelling of the resurrected Christ.

Christ - "He is the beginning" writes Paul, "the Firstborn from the dead" .

So because being the resurrected Lord who is able to impart life into man in His resurrection state John 1:4 would rightly refer to the new creation. But the immediately preceding verse 3 would be the original creation - the old creation because "ALL THINGS came into being through Him."

Apart from Him, John writes, not ONE THING came into being which has come into being.

John 1:3 I would teach therefore relates to the old creation.
John 1:4 about Christ being the one in whom is the divine ZOE life, relates to the new creation - the church, in which the Firstborn from the dead can dispense Himself into man forming them into His mystical Body.

That is the new creation. And Revelation 3:14 ALSO speaks of the new creation. Christ is "the beginning of the [NEW] creation of God"

"And to the messenger of the church in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Rev. 3:14)

The resurrected Christ is the beginning of the new creation - "And He is the Head of the Body, the church; He is THE BEGINNING ... the Firstborn from the dead."(Col. 1:18)

It is important to realize that Colossians 1:15 - 18 just like John 1:1-4 speak of the old creation with Christ as preeminent and the new creation the spearheaded by the church with Christ as preeminent.

Indeed taking in Colossians 1:15 - 18 you can see that the conclusion is that Christ would have preeminence in ALL things - that is in both the old and new creations.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation,

Because in Him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through Him and unto Him.

And He is the Head of the Body, the church, He is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, THAT HE MIGHT HAVE PREEMINENCE IN ALL THINGS." (Col. 1:15-18)

Christ - the preeminent One in the old creation.
Christ - the preeminent One in the new creation.
Christ - the preeminent in ALL THINGS.

And the atheist heart is chilly and cold towards such a Wonderful One?? You should tell Him Lord Jesus, I love You.

And if you cannot bring yourself to say Lord Jesus I love You I would advize you to say Lord Jesus, You LOVE me. You love me Lord."

If you do this with the little faith that you have, pretty soon you too will love the Lord Jesus in return. For NO ONE loved and loves you like Jesus Christ loves you.

@galveston75 said
Perhaps you answer too quick and not read what I said. I did not say anything of the sort about the teaching of the trinity. I said I appreciated the time they took to explain themselves. Pay attention...

I’ll look up what you said later.

Meanwhile can you confirm then that the doctrine of the trinity is not influenced by Satan?