Jesus IS Jehovah

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

And ....... perhaps not.

The other alternative is that you are not properly reading the things you copy and paste here, hence the frequent difficulty you have in recalling them.

As an aside, have you (in the many years you have been posting/preaching here) ever made clear in a post that Witness Lee proffered the notion of man's deification?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I have 'no horse in the race.' I read scripture purely at an academic level. (The same way I can discuss Tolkien's portrayal of dragons, without my disbelief in dragons getting in the way).

Theists bring their baggage to scripture, not atheists.

Precisely you treat each of them the same way.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

As an aside, have you (in the many years you have been posting/preaching here) ever made clear in a post that Witness Lee proffered the notion of man's deification?

Are you hesitant to talk with me about deification without mentioning the name Witness Lee ?

I mean does drawing the name Witness Lee INTO the discussion on deification somehow furnish some skeptical high ground for you that you would not have otherwise ?

@kellyjay said
Precisely you treat each of them the same way.

Yes, academically, without an emotional investment.

No offense, but you wear blinkers when you come to a particular text in scripture. Such blinkers become more apparent when you disagree with other Christians who interprete things differently, based on their particular denomination.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

As an aside, have you (in the many years you have been posting/preaching here) ever made clear in a post that Witness Lee proffered the notion of man's deification?

Are you hesitant to talk with me about deification without mentioning the name Witness Lee ?

I mean does drawing the name Witness Lee INTO the discussion on deification somehow furnish some skeptical high ground for you that you would not have otherwise ?

I don't think a flea could squeeze through the gap between Lee and yourself.

But sure, what are 'your' views on deification Sonship and can you explain how they differ from the views of Witness Lee?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

It appears to me that you value some suspicion evoking content via the name Witness Lee which you feel gives you some upper hand in the debate.

I can write about the full salvation of man without reference to the name Witness Lee (Not that I should be ashamed to mention him).

You sound like the mentioning of that name you lean on like a crutch to generate bad feelings in the minds of readers, granting you some imagined upper hand in the discussion.

Genetic fallacy maybe ?
Guilt by association, maybe ?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I don't think a flea could squeeze through the gap between Lee and yourself.

I am honored that you'd say so. However, I am surprised that some of you guys have not rather changed tactics and used the LSM Search Engine to point out where I DIFFER in expression from something Lee wrote.

Let's be realistic. A chess player may champion, say, Emmanuel Lasker - world champion for some 23 years (?). Or she may champion Tal, or Petrosian or some other world class grandmaster. That won't save them from having to learn to navigate on the fly their own hard games.

Yes, I benefit-ted much from Witness Lee. You should have been able to detect that I can field skeptic's questions on the fly from my own study of the Scriptures. And if not, so be it.

I can tell you why I believe in deification of the believers. I can only tell you what is a problem for you is not a problem to me.

To begin with - I believe in God.
If for you there is no God, I can see why you wouldn't believe in any salvation to the extent of becoming sons of God.

Deification.

It actually make so much sense in an obvious way. If you would think about it it should make such obvious sense.

God creates a man.
He doesn't create him evil or bad. He creates him neutral and innocent between God's way and, let's say, "the other way." God actually creates this man innocent and good. He creates man with a choosing free will.

But God gives him the choice to have a much closer relationship, if he chooses.
That closer relationship from mere innocency and neutrality is to be "organically" one with God in a mingled and blended and interwoven way of two lives joining together.

The Source and Fatherhood is eternally God's alone, with the non-communicable attributes. But God's communicable attributes are for the sons' sharing.

That is deification as I see it.

@sonship said
Galveston,

Jesus taught that He is the judge of all nations and all human beings.

"For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to also have life in Himself; And He gave Him authority to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man." (John 5:26,27)

We see Jesus calling all the nations before Him to be judged in ...[text shortened]... ] will sit to judge all the surrounding nations." (Joel 3:12) [/quote]

Jesus is Jehovah God.

Oh my!!!!!!! Like most trinity folks all are so hard headed and not open to just looking at what is the progress of the bible from a time that Jesus had not yet come to earth.
From the moment Adam sinned Jehovah set into motion what it would take for humans to have the chance to get out from under Adam's sin that we all inherited.
Maybe you do, maybe you don't. In reality any of Jehovah's angels could have done what was needed which was a perfect life given as a sacrifice for our imperfect life's. A ransom was needed and any angel could do that if that had been needed. Another angel could have been given life in a human woman and once born and if they had remained faithful until it's death, the ransom would have been paid. A done deal.
But it wasn't just any angel that stepped up and without hesitation offered to do this for all humans. This was God's "firstborn son' who became Jesus once he was born. His previous name was Michael.
Before Jesus did this he was as the Bible clearly says the one who Jehovah grew fonder and fonder of and this was because the son all thru out his existence pleased his Father in everything. Jehovah knew that Jesus would never fail him in anything.
When Adam sinned, Jehovah knew what was going to be needed in the future, and at the right time a perfect human would have to give his life as a sacrifice. Jesus offered without hesitation.
Now the point your continually missing is that yes Jehovah was the judge for all the humans by himself up until the time that "Jesus sits on a throne at the right side of his Father". Not on his fathers throne but where? On the right side of his fathers throne. You can't seem to understand that position and what that has always represented even here on earth. Jesus is in a very honored position but he is NOT sitting on Jehovah's throne ever.
Again where is the holy spirit if it is also 3rd God? It's because it is not God, it is simply Jehovah's force or strength. It is not an angel or a living spirit that needs to sit..........
Anyway Jesus earned the position he was given. It is one he never had in the past. As a result of his love and faithfulness he was granted to also Judge all humans because he was given that ability by his Father. Jesus did not decide to do this on his on because he is not Jehovah.
The proof of this is when Satan tried to temp him with all the Kingdoms of the world.
Do you really thing Satan would have approached Jesus if Jesus was really Jehovah? Really?
Satan approached Jesus because he knew Jesus very well, for eons of time. He not only knew that Jesus was now human, he knew that Jesus could be tempted because he is not Jehovah who could never sin or make mistakes or falter.
Jesus could have by choice done wrong. He couldn't use Adam as an answer if he had done wrong but he could have decided to take up Satan's offer. But he didn't.
That is why he was rewarded by his father and sits beside his Father.
I totally know I just wasted my time here but you never know. Something might wake you up............. All the scriptures you think proves the trinity, don't.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke Yep he does.....

@galveston75

Oh my!!!!!!! Like most trinity folks all are so hard headed and not open to just looking at what is the progress of the bible from a time that Jesus had not yet come to earth.

Before Jesus walked the earth, the prophet Isaiah foretold that a son ... given would be called Eternal Father and a child ... born would be called Mighty God.

You are not suggesting that the recipients of the prophecy Isaiah 9:6 retort back to God that it could NEVER be. Would that not be rebellion if Israel refused to believe Isaiah 9:6 ?

From the moment Adam sinned Jehovah set into motion what it would take for humans to have the chance to get out from under Adam's sin that we all inherited.

Before even then. Christ was foreknown "before the foundation of the world" to be the Redeemer.

"But with the precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ;

Who was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has been manifested in the last of times for your sake." (1 Pet. 1:19,20)

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. In reality any of Jehovah's angels could have done what was needed which was a perfect life given as a sacrifice for our imperfect life's.

The book of Hebrews in the earliest chapters, makes emphatically clear that Christ is and did something that NO ANGEL was or did. "To which of the angels has He ever said ...".

The Jews who became Christians read the letter Hebrews and were entirely informed and clear that Christ was not one of the two or three ANGELS mentioned in the Scriptures.

You are in rebellion.

A ransom was needed and any angel could do that if that had been needed. Another angel could have been given life in a human woman and once born and if they had remained faithful until it's death, the ransom would have been paid. A done deal.

The distinction between the Son []b]"O God"[/b] and ANY named angel of the Bible is clear. Christ is unique and not like any of the angels.

"Having become as much better than the angels as to have inherited a more distinguished name than they.

For to which is the angels has He ever said. "You are My Son; this day I have begotten You" ? And again "I will be a Father to Him, and He will be a Son to Me?" (Hebrews 1:4,5) [/quote]

To the rhetorical question the following answers apply:
To Michael? No.
To Gabriel? No.
To Daystar [Lucifer]? No.

There are no other named angels in the Old Testament.

"To WHICH of the angels has He ever said, You are My Son; this day I have begotten You" ?

TO ... NO ... ANGEL

You are in rebellion against Jehovah.

But it wasn't just any angel that stepped up and without hesitation offered to do this for all humans. This was God's "firstborn son' who became Jesus once he was born. His previous name was Michael.

"To which of the angels ...?"

To Michael ?
ANSWER: NO.

"And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He says, And let all the angels of God worship Him."

That would of course include ALL of the angels to whom the previous question was answered in the negative - NO angel was pronounced God's Son.

You are rejecting the counsel of God spoken to you.
This is rebellion.

Speaking further of the contrast between Christ and the angels:

"And of the angels He says, Who makes His angels winds and His ministers a flame of fire;

BUT of the Son, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom." (See Hebrews 1:7,8)

If you claim to me a monotheist then O God must mean the one God Jehovah. If "O God" there refers to another God and you believe it then you are a POLYTHEIST.

You have more than one God. Then you are in rebellion.

"Yet to us there is one God, the Father, out from whom are all things, and we are unto Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we are through Him." (1 Cor. 8:6)

Either:
1.) This verse is wrong and there is not one God.
2.) You, a Jehovah's Witness, are not part of the "us" Paul speaks of as the Christian church.

The Triune God is like the journey of Jehovah INTO man.
Satan opposes God dispensing Himself into man. He opposes it to the uttermost. Satan, if he cannot stop men from believing in God, would stop them from believing that there is a process of God journeying and dispensing Himself into man.

First Cor. 8:6 says there is one God and one Lord. That Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate. If He is not then you have polytheism in your teaching.

And the ONE LORD is God AND ... His Christ in Revelation 11:15

"And the seventh angel trumpeted; and ... the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever."

@sonship said
@galveston75

Oh my!!!!!!! Like most trinity folks all are so hard headed and not open to just looking at what is the progress of the bible from a time that Jesus had not yet come to earth.

Before Jesus walked the earth, the prophet Isaiah foretold that a son ... given would be called Eternal Father and a child ... born would ...[text shortened]... he kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever." [/b] [/quote]

Jesus commanded the apostles:
"go and baptise in the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit."

There is not one instance in the entire NT where the disciples baptised using the trinitarian formula - which incidentally is entirely relevant.

The disciples baptised using the name of Jesus every single time without fail - thus: I baptise you in the name of Jesus Christ

and never: I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit

So what is the one single name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy ghost? it is Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father and the holy spirit - it's right there in Acts!

Irrespective of doves, prayers, calling out, they are the same single person, the same single entity. Not three. Three is pagan and totally unscriptural. The disciples new this.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

It appears to me that you value some suspicion evoking content via the name Witness Lee which you feel gives you some upper hand in the debate.

I can write about the full salvation of man without reference to the name Witness Lee (Not that I should be ashamed to mention him).

You sound like the mentioning of that name you lean on like a crutch to ...[text shortened]... e imagined upper hand in the discussion.

Genetic fallacy maybe ?
Guilt by association, maybe ?

Actually, I have become of the opinion (after studying much of what he had to say) that you 'should' be ashamed to mention Lee, or at the very least uneasy.

It has also become apparent that, over the years, you have been deliberately selective in what views of Lee you have shared here, so as not to spook mainstream Christians. Please consider that a direct accusation. (That I'll happily evidence).

@Before even then. Christ was foreknown "before the foundation of the world" to be the Redeemer.

"But with the precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ;

Who was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has been manifested in the last of times for your sake." (1 Pet. 1:19,20)


What? It does not say that at all. Of course he was know before the world was made. He helped his father make it. Did you forget that point?
And that scripture says NOTHING about him being the redeemer before humans were ever created!!!!!!
Now your adding to scripture and you know that is not accepted in God's eyes at all. It seems as many other times here your always adding more then what the scripture is saying just to fit your trinity crudd.

@sonship said
Deification.

It actually make so much sense in an obvious way. If you would think about it it should make such obvious sense.

God creates a man.
He doesn't create him evil or bad. He creates him neutral and innocent between God's way and, let's say, "the other way." God actually creates this man innocent and good. He creates man with a choosin ...[text shortened]... s. But God's communicable attributes are for the sons' sharing.

That is deification as I see it.

Good for you.

Blasphemous and fundamentally unchristian, but good for you.