Jesus was fully human and fully G_d. When the Son of G_d came to earth. He set aside his divine actions. Like any human, we all depend on the Holy Spirit to do stuff.I am yet to see a Trinitarian adequately believe or explain this.
As Christ said: "I can of mine own self do nothing". John 5:30
Somewhere between post #2055 & #2056 is a truth which is not answered by imported doctrine.
I'm guessing Isaiah 9:7 might help
A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
I already posted the other translations.
Explaining "Everlasting Father" To Oneness Cults - The Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6 Whenever Christmas approaches, we can hear many pastors and church leaders quote from...
thebereans.net
What is the meaning of “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6? | GotQuestions.org
What is the meaning of “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6? Why is Jesus referred to as the Everlasting Father when He isn’t God the Father?
www.gotquestions.org
Is Isaiah 9:6 About a Divine Messiah?
Are we understanding this well-known prophecy correctly?
answersingenesis.org
Oneness advocates see phrase, “Eternal Father” as a proof text to the notion that the Messiah is the Father – However, Consider this:
1) Fallacy of equivocation by asserting that the term “father” (Heb. Ab) has only one meaning. The NT identification of God the Father. Contra the fact that the term “father” (ab) has various meanings in the OT, depending on the context. Further, asserting that the unitarian supposition (i.e., only the Father) many Oneness advocate appeal also to Mail. 2:10. However, neither this passage nor Mal. 2:10 teaches that only the Father is God, rather speaking of God as Creator (see point 4 below).
2) Shem. The word translated “NAME” (shem, LXX – onoma) as in “His name will be called” (shem + qara) was Not a formal title for God, but rather it denoted the essence or essential characteristics, or authority of who someone is (cf. E. J. Young)[1]. This was clearly the Semitic concept of “name.” Hence, as to the essence and character of the Messiah, He is Wonderful,[2] Counselor, Mighty God, Father Eternal (Heb.) and Prince of Peace.
3) When the term “father” is applied to God (or Yahweh) in the OT, it typically denoted His parental, providential character to His children—namely, Israel. For example:
- Exod. 4:22-23: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.'”
- Ps. 103:13: “Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.”
- Isa. 63:16: “You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us And Israel does not recognize us. You, O Lord, are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name” (cf. Jer. 31:9).
4) Linguistically, – Ab carries the meaning of “possessor, “founder,” or “source.” For example, 2 Sam. 23:31 speaks of Abialbon– “father (or possessor) of strength,” strong one. In Exodus 6:24, “Abiasaph”– “father [possessor] of gathering,” As with Malachi 2:10, – corresponding with that meaning, the term “father” carries the idea of “possessor,” “founder,” “source”- as with His role as Creator (cf. Duet. 32:6; Isa. 64:8; Mal. 2:10). So, the Messiah “possesses,” that is, the source of eternity—He is the Creator of all things .
5) Syntactically, the Hebrew term ab (“father”) precedes the word translated “eternal.” Thus, abiad (אֲבִיעַ֖ד), from the Hebrew ab (“father”) and ad (“forever, ever perpetuity”). Thus, literally, “father eternal” (not “eternal father”)—indicating the eternal nature of the Messiah.
Targums of Isa 9:6[3]: “For us a child is born, to us a son is given . . . and his name will be called the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing forever [or “HE who lives forever”]. The Messiah in whose days peace shall increase upon us” (Targum Johnathan).
Conclusion
So according to lexical-semantic of abiad (ab, “father” and ad, “eternal, forever”), the Messiah is the “father,” that is, the possessor, source of eternity—the Creator of all things, as the NT indicates (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2, 10-12; 2:10). He is the YHWH of Ps. 102:25-27; cf. Heb. 1:10-12), the unchangeable Creator (He lives forever). But not the person of the Father or Holy Spirit. He is the Son of God (Dan. 7:9-14; Mark 14:61-14; John 5:17-18; 17:5; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13-14)
There has never been a Jewish commentator, Rabbi, church Father, nor Christian scholar that has interpreted Isa. 9:6 as Oneness teachers do. Oneness teachers must prove that Jesus is specifically called the Father of the Son of God (i.e., His own Father).
The Oneness view opposes historical and contemporary scholarship at every turn. The Jesus Christ of biblical revelation is God the Son, unipersonal and preexistent, who is the Son of the Father, the only Jesus that can save.
“Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (2 John 1:3).
Notes
[1] E. J. Young, Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, 1972.
[2] The Hebrew term translated “Wonderful” (pele) is from the same root word (both from pala) as in Judges 13:18: “seeing it is wonderful.”
[3] The Targum was an ancient Aramaic translation providing explanations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Old Testament. In the post-exilic period, Aramaic began to be broadly spoken in the Jewish community in conjunction with Hebrew. There is solid evidence indicating that the targumic usage of the Memra (“Word”) was the background for John’s Logos theology.
Posted in Deity of Christ, Oneness, TrinityTagged abiab, ad, biblical errors, biblical interpretation, eternal Father, everlasting Father, father, father of eternity, Isa. 9:6, Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is Son, Malachi 2:10, oneness, oneness Pentecostalism, oneness theology, son of god, trinitarian theology, trinity, Wonderful
Jesus is not the Father; He is Son.
Oneness advocates see phrase, “Eternal Father” as a proof text to the notion that the Messiah is the Father. God is Triune.
christiandefense.org
What is your concern with this passage? Jesus humbled Himself, and became obedient, taking on the form of a servant.
Does not this answer to your objection?
Which leads to another question. What was Jesus before He became obedient? Disobedient? I shouldn't think so. Leaving 'Sovereign'. Jesus was sovereign, and became obedient.
Who is the true Sovereign?
Much love!
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
...............................................................
Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”? No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.
Gabriel and Zacharias (Zechariah) meant exactly what Israelites have meant throughout thousands of years when saying “God is with us” and similar statements. They meant “God has favored us” or “God is helping us”! - Gen. 21:22; Ex. 18:19; Nu. 23:21; josh. 1:9; 1 Chron. 17:2; 2 chron. 1:1; 35:21; ezra 1:3; is. 8:10. And Joshua 1:17; 1 Samuel 10:7; 2 Chron. 15:2-4, 9 (cf., Jer. 1:8; Haggai 1:13). But if we insist on trinitarian-type “proof,” then Gabriel must have meant that he (Gabriel) is God! And Zacharias (whose own name means ‘Jehovah is renowned’ - p. 678, TDOTB) must have meant that John the Baptizer is God! – Also see 1 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 14:17; 1 Ki. 8:57; 1 Chron. 17:2; 22:18; 2 Chron. 36:23; Is. 41:10; Amos 5:14; Zech 8:23. (Also see “Immanuel” in the Insight books.)
This understanding is seen throughout the Bible. For example, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, RSV.
Or, in a Psalm many of us apply to ourselves or our friends:
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me - ASV.
The acclaimed trinitarian Bible dictionary, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:
“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.
Or as noted trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris tells us:
“Matthew [in Matt. 1:23] is not saying, ‘Someone who is “God” is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’” - p. 258, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. (emphasis added)
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.......................................................
Bar Kochba and the Christians
Bar Kochba and the Christians
(For use with the 'Israel' and 'JHVHNT' studies)
If the trinity (or just the deity of Jesus) had really been taught (or believed) by the first Christians, the schism between the Jews (who considered such a teaching "an unpardonable offense") and Christians would have been immediate, irrevocable, and incredibly intense. But that is not what caused the greatest and final split between the sect of the first Christians and the Jews. Nor is it what what caused Christians after 135 A.D. to rid themselves of "Jewish" aspects of the new religion (probably including the use of the Divine Name).
"The Jewish belief that the parting of the ways came not at Stephen’s martyrdom but after Bar Kochba’s war against Hadrian [132-135 A. D.] is now gaining ground. Previously there had been no event sufficiently striking to sever the ties. Christians frequented the synagogues: they were still a Jewish sect. [See the ISRAEL study] But Bar Kochba was hailed by Aqiba as the Messiah. This the Christians could not condone and they stood aside. .... The Jews regarded the Christians as renegades: the Christians would not fight for Aqiba’s Messiah. The die had fallen and there was no recalling the past." - Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 167, Vol. 13, 14th ed.
Noted Christian Bible historian, Philip Schaff writes: " (A.D. 132-135). A pseudo-Messiah, Bar-Cochba (son of the stars, Num. 24:17), afterwards called Bar-Cosiba (son of falsehood), put himself at the head of the rebels, and caused all the Christians who would not join him to be most cruelly murdered." – p. 37, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995 reprint.
It was the generation following the destruction of the Temple which brought about a final rupture between Jews and Christians .... In the third rebellion against Rome [132-135 A.D.], when the Christians were unable to accept bar Kochba as their Messiah, they declared that their kingdom was of the other world, and withdrew themselves completely from Judaism and everything Jewish. The alienation process was completed. Judaism and Christianity became strangers to each other .... A wall of misunderstanding and hate was erected by the narrow zealotries of the two faiths. [pp. 152, 153, Jews, God and History, Max I. Dimont, A Signet Book, 1962.]
"Cochba [bar Kochba] ... tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the Roman army." - p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988.
"Another Christian apologist, Justin [Martyr], tells how ... Bar Kochba, the leader of the insurrection, ordered Christians alone to be executed if they would not deny and curse Jesus the Messiah." - Ibid.
"After the war the Jerusalem church, once Jewish, consisted only of Gentiles." - Ibid.
Not everybody agreed to Aqiba's view that Simon [Bar Kochba] was the Messiah. The Jewish Christians refused to accept this claim; the Christian author Justin Martyr tells that Simon commanded Christians 'to be lead [sic] away to terrible punishment,' unless they denied Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and cursed the man from Nazareth (First Apology 31.6). - http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar07.html
L. Michael White:
[Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin]:
The relationship between Judaism and Christianity after the turn of the second century would become more and more hostile as time went on partly because of other political forces that continued to develop. .... As a result within sixty years after the first revolt there would arise a new rebellion. We typically call this the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome or the Bar Kochba revolt. And it's named after a famous rebel leader who really becomes the central figure of this new political period. He's called Bar Kochba. .... His real name seems to have been Shimon Bar Kosova, and he probably was of a royal family of the Jewish tradition. But he takes to himself this messianic identity and claims that in the year 132 it is time for a new kingdom to be reestablished in Israel. Apparently he did take Jerusalem for some time. ...It's possible, although we're not absolutely sure, that he thought he could rebuild the temple too. But events would not let that happen.
The Romans very quickly began to put down the revolt and within three years all of those who had followed Bar Kochba were either killed or dispersed. ....
The one thing that does happen in the second revolt, though, is [that] the self-consciously apocalyptic and messianic identity of Bar Kochba forces the issue for the Christian tradition. It appears that some people in the second revolt tried to press other Jews, including Christians, into the revolt, saying, "Come join us to fight against the Romans. You believe God is going to restore the kingdom to Israel, don't you? Join us." But the Christians by this time are starting to say, "No, he can't be the messiah -- we already have one." And at that point we really see the full-fledged separation of Jewish tradition and Christian tradition becoming clear.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=ancienthistory&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fwgbh%2Fpages%2Ffrontline%2Fshows%2Freligion%2Fportrait%2Fjews.html
(TBC)
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
......................................................
Part 2
"Revolt
"The Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva convinced the Sanhedrin to support the impending revolt and regarded the chosen commander Simon Bar Kokhba the Jewish Messiah, according to the verse from Numbers 24:17: "There shall come a star out of Jacob" ("Bar Kokhba" means "son of a star" in Aramaic language).
"At the time, Christianity was still a minor sect of Judaism and most historians believe that it was this messianic claim that alienated many Christians (who believed that the true messiah was Jesus) and sharply deepened the schism." -
http://www.answers.com/topic/bar-kokhba-s-revolt?hl=simon&hl=bar&hl=kokhba
Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum asserts that the "rift caused by the destruction of Jerusalem [70 C.E.] proved to be a temporary one, and a partial reconciliation did come about despite Hebrew Christian opposition to the new Judaism of the rabbis." p. 41, HEBREW CHRISTIANITY, Its Theology, History and Philosophy.
He also says that 132-135 C.E. was a key period, the 2nd Jewish revolt against Rome under Bar Kochba. When the revolt broke out, the Jewish Believers joined the revolt with their rabbinic brothers. However, Rabbi Akiva made the sad error of declaring Bar Kochba to be the Jewish Messiah. This is where the real rift occured. If anyone can be accused of turning Christianity into a Gentile religion, it is not Paul, nor the church leaders in Asia Minor, but rather Bar Kochba, according to Fruchtenbaum. - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/8701/religion/mjhist2.txt
[The] PBS "Frontline" program "From Jesus To Christ: The First Christians" is … steeped in Jewish history and Jewish concerns. The four-hour program [aired] Monday and Tuesday, April 6 and 7 [1998. Here are some of the issues covered on that program]:
".... The period after the First Revolt is dominated by an increasingly hostile relationship between Christians and Jews as the followers of Jesus move increasingly away from their Jewish roots. 'Part 3: Let The Reader Understand' examines this period, the creation of the four Gospels and the Second Revolt, led by Bar Kochba.
This is when a true split occurred, as Christians refused to join in the four-year struggle because Bar Kochba claimed he was the Messiah. After the Jews are crushed by the Roman army, Christianity begins to assert itself and accommodate the forces of the empire that killed its leader." -
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk980320/etearly.htm
"Until the year 132, Christians considered themselves a sect of Judaism. In that year, Simon bar Kochba (Simon son of the star), was confirmed by the great Rabbi Akiba as the Messiah. bar Kochba was a great leader and warrior, and led a revolt of tens of thousands of Jews against the Romans (similar to recent conflicts in Chechnya, or Grozny.) The Christians, who would have been eager to fight the Romans, couldn't, because they already had a Messiah. This was the final split, where Christianity stopped being Judaism. .... By the 390's A.D., Galastria, Bishop of Galatia counted 156 different sects of Christianity, all blending the Christian story with local and tribal concepts. There were cults that believed that Jesus was a God when born, those that believed that he became a God later. Some believed that Jesus did not have normal bodily excretions, and those who worshiped Satan because they believed that serpent had won in the Garden of Eden. The confused and varied notions of what Christianity meant were consolidated by the growing concentration of power and centralization in Rome, in various councils, beginning in Nicea, in 325 A.D." -
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tzohr.htm
"According to Eusebius' History of the Church 4.5.3-4: the first 15 Bishops of Jerusalem were 'of the circumcision'. The Romans destroyed the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem in year 135 during the Bar Kokhba Revolt." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christians
"In 145 CE (ten years after the Bar Kochba Revolt) Justin Martyr wrote an apology in which he was having a dialogue with a Jew named Trypho. Using Bible proof texts, Justin Martyr claimed that the Jews were originally selected by God because they were such an unspiritual group; they needed added laws. He blasted the Jews for rejecting Jesus, for killing Jesus, for leading people away from salvation. He gloated over the destruction of the Temple as being just punishment for Jewish perfidy. Justin Martyr's writings became incorporated into early Christian thought, and were the origins of Christian anti-Semitism." -
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Early_Church.html
This is the time when Jewish customs (including the Passover) started to be 'cleansed' from the Church.
This is also the time when Christians had begun copying the Septuagint for their own OT use* (and probably removing the name of the 'Jewish' God from it). At the same time they would likely also have removed that only personal name of God (Ps. 83:18, KJV) from the NT scriptures.
.............................................
* "Jewish/Christian hostilities led to the abandonment of the LXX by the Jews and the production of new translations and revisions, since the Christians adopted the LXX for their own purposes in worship, teaching and apologetics" - The Influence of the LXX,
https://academic.logos.com/the-influence-of-the-lxx/
"Starting approximately in the second century C.E., several factors led most Jews to abandon the LXX. Christians naturally used the LXX since it was the only Greek version available to the earliest Christians." - New World Encyclopedia https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Septuagint
Last edited:
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
Do you follow a conventional bible, such as King James?
What does John1 mean to you?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Or as written in the Peshitta?
1In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.................................................
John 1:1c.
I have seen that John 1:1c is the most-accused verse in the NWT for 'falsifying,' but I know from an intensive study of my own that the NWT is one of the very few Bibles which translates it properly according to John's own usage: 'a god' or its equivalent. If you insist on the trinitarian translation of this important verse ("the Word was God"), here are my personal, detailed studies disproving it:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html
http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2011/06/definite-john-11.html (Longest and most detailed by far)
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | John |
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the...
codexsinaiticus.org
Sinaiticus does not read that way.
CODEX SINAITICUS: The New Testament translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript
Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at Mt. Sinai by H. T. Anderson, begun in 1861
Copyright ©2004 Jackson H. Snyder II
ACCORDING TO JOHN
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
See also
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | John |
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the...
codexsinaiticus.org
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
Still looking for Codex Vaticanus translation...
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 5,286
- 714
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
If this helps you to sleep at night but the Word states differently.
There should be a costly tariff on imports!
F2F
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 5,286
- 714
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Lol Marks! Sovereignty doesn't learn!
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. Luke 2:52
Marks, is it possible for a son to grow and learn wisdom while still being obedient? Do you realize how insane your belief is when you align it with the above verse? God growing in favour with God?
(removed harsh comment for fear of offence)
Your model doesn't work...you know it, but your paradigm would need to shift so far so few are able to make that journey.
F2F
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 5,286
- 714
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Okay so lets provide Bible truth on this matter. Unfortunately your copy and paste answer failed to deal with Isaiah 9:7 it's context being the Kingdom Age!Jesus is not the Father; He is Son.
Oneness advocates see phrase, “Eternal Father” as a proof text to the notion that the Messiah is the Father. God is Triune.
Just to revisit the question of HOW Jesus can be called Father in the Kingdom age (Isaiah 9:7) and NOT be God the Father.
1. From the prophetical viewpoint: (and still within Isaiah!)
Isaiah prophesied, "he shall be a *father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah . . . and they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house." Isa 22:21-24.
Translators note: Heb “a father to.” The Hebrew term אָב (’av, “father”) is here used metaphorically of one who protects and supports those under his care and authority, like a father does his family. For another example of this metaphorical use of the word, see Job 29:16 (NET NOTES)
So its this Father-Like example that will see Christ exercise justice, wisdom, might, and knowledge as per Isaiah 11 toward the mortal population in the earth during his reign. It is teaching us the Christ will have Father-like characteristics the same of those exhibited in Paul letters:
"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers . . ." (1 Cor. 4:14, 15); (inference is Paul showing them Fatherly care in his ministering to their needs)
"As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children." (1 Thess. 2:11).
@Learner, it's important when studying the Bible you understand the context and how certain words are used to express truth. So often Christians force notions upon the Word which are not there!
2. Terminology
We are called Brethren are we not? 1 Thess 2:14; Heb. 2:11 etc proves so! though we are also called children for example:
"I and the children which God hath given me." Heb. 2:13 cmp Isa. 8:17, 18.
Christ is the father of these children since he is the means by which we are newly born. John 3:3, 7. (This does not make Jesus God, or Father, only that he is able to play the role of Father in his care and protection of us - also in him is LIFE.
This is the seed (offspring) which Christ shall see and be satisfied.
Isaiah 53:10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants (by faith!) and enjoy long life, and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him. Is 53:10.
Psalms 45:16 Your sons will carry on the dynasty of your ancestors; you will make them princes throughout the land. This verse is Messianic as indicated by vs. 6 and Heb. 1:8, 9 where it is quoted in a context referring to Christ.
Did you notice how many passages came from Isaiah? And how many are quoted in the NT?
Jesus Christ is the perfect manifestation of the Father in every aspect though he is not The Father or God Himself - a Son sitting on the right hand of the Father on High.
F2F
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
You didn't actually address my point, only why you didn't think it could be true. But my point is valid.
Insane? Calm down, man. Offended? No need to project. "Harsh comment" . . . scary! Oh, and, "You know it . . .", claim of intellectual dishonesty.
This is all the kind of stuff I normally hear when someone wants to refute me, but cannot. So they throw rocks, which is not as meaningful.
Jesus is in fact YHWH, our Creator God, and this is one more passage that teaches us this. Your bad mouthing aside. It's a pity you can't keep on topic, and feel the need to make me your topic. Considering you don't even really know me.
Much love!
Last edited:
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
We try to at every opportunity….are you listening?
Ask questions QT and we will answer them…..
Last edited:
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
My ears are open. What is it you are saying?.....cuz to your surprise/ alarm, it ain't of Jehovah.
If you consider yourself representative of the Jehovah's Witness message and I am the recipient of your message, then I can assuredly tell you, I have learned nothing of Jehovah from the many long posts you have made.
What have learned from your many words is that of self justification, ie the 'rightness' of what you claim and the wrongness of others.
So here we are, you now have an opportunity to tell me of Jehovah!
Similar threads
