Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well stated, and now I feel convicted for even starting this thread. But I think where I was going with it, and this was my intent, was to get some healthy dialogue with people about religion, and how dangerous it is to believe that your religion, my religion, or anyone's religion is some how better or right over other people's.
Scripture no where teaches that you have to be even in a religion to be saved or to be able to enter God's kingdom. Yes the bible teaches that we are not to forsake the assemble of ourselves with other believers, but it doesn't say that we must do it in order to be saved. I think this whole religious divide is a tactic of the Devil, who knows he's defeated, and he's doing everything possible to stir up confusion and division so that people don't even question what they believe or follow. It's just sad and tragis that so many people would rather believe a lie, by follow the teachings of man. somoene's interpretation of the bible without being like the Bereans of Acts 17:11. We ALL MUST SEARCH, SEEK, AND SIDE WITH GOD, NOT WITH WHAT OUR RELIGIONS TELL US TO BELIEVE AS TRUTH. I'M DONE!!!!!
That kind of thinking is the exact descrition of a broad and spacious path for whatever people want to believe. You are so inclusive and wonderful! Why don't you all hold hands too. Matthew 7:13
That kind of thinking is the exact descrition of a broad and spacious path for whatever people want to believe. You are so inclusive and wonderful! Why don't you all hold hands too. Matthew 7:13
There are many but we can start the discussion at the most explicit statement of it at Colossians 1:15
Lets talk about the details and look at the whole passage from 13-20
(Colossians 1:13-20) . . .He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.
Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation". That is straight forward and explicit. We all know you trinitarians want to redefine "fiesrtborn" in order to ignore the explicit message here.
I know there are other points, in this passage you also want to redefine, but lets start with "firstborn".
Please Tell me your trinitarian definition of "firstborn" and provide your examples.
Here you go. I hope and pray that you really pray to Jehovah that you will at least understand why I think the way I do about who Jesus is.
Colossians 1:15 is one of the main versus that JWs use as a proof text to argue or prove that Jesus was first created by God. Now when you first read that verse, it does sound like that interpretation is a reasonable one.
KJV-R (Webster) Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
The Greek word "prototokos" used for firstborn in Colossian 1:15 means that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. It also means that Jesus has preeminence over creation since ALL things or (all creation) were created through, for, and by Him.
Just from reading the context of Colossians Chapter 1, Paul makes it clear that God appointed or placed Jesus over creation.
At a certain point in history, Jesus “became flesh.” He possessed a truly human nature, and thus was a creature. I wouldn't disagree with Jesus being part of creation. So the fact that Jesus can be shown to be a member of creation tells us nothing whatsoever about His pre-existence before he “became flesh”, nor proves that he was created by God before all of creation, nor sheds any light on his ultimate identity or nature.
The burden of proof falls on the JW to show where in the bible does it teach that Jesus was created or to ask more directly, where in the bible does it explicitly state that God created Jesus first and then created all things through him?
My reasoning behind Jesus not being God's first creation is that the term “prototokos” doesn't require the “first in time—first in series”or mean first person born in a group or family. Is that true in all cases? No it is not and Scripture proves this.
If we look at Jeremiah 31:9, we see an example that blows the JW argument out of the water. This verse shows how the most prominent to God was actually called "my firstborn" (Ephraim). Although Manassah was actually the firstborn child(Genesis 41:50-52), God chose Ephraim and thus says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9).
It must be noted that God's choice of Ephraim over Manassah actually went clearly back to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence, Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manassah" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manassah but again to God, he was the "firstborn" not Manassah.
At Colossians 1:15, Paul rules out any thought of Jesus being the "first created". He gives as the grounds for the application of this title that Christ was hands on responsible for all creation in the first place and hands on responsible for it's reconciliation in the last place. Paul makes it plain that Jesus,"he is before all things", and that is the same thing John tells us in John 1:3, right after identifying Jesus as "theos". John says everything came into existence through "theos" and that there were no exceptions not to even one thing. This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did so through Jesus.
Scripture also reveals that Christ was appointed heir of all things.
Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Psalms 2:7-8
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
As we see here Psalms 2:7-8 is actually cited in the Hebrews context, but what do we read at Psalms 2:7-8? We can't read it any clearer, “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father. Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance And the ends of the earth as your own possession.”
So how much difference is there between being “placed”... and being “appointed”? This idea can be expanded by reading Ps. 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
Ps. 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
After referencing Ps. 89:27 with Ps. 2:7, a person cannot miss the easy connection with Col. 1:15-17 where Paul likewise includes the same "...the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities."
Jesus deserves the designation “firstborn” because as Paul said, “He is before all things.” This harmonizes with John 1:3, and this is even more clear when understood against the background of the Colossian heresy that Paul was clearly addressing to them. The Colossians were teaching that there were many mediators. Paul had to refute that false teaching by addressing to the Colossians that only Jesus could be the true Mediator. Thus, only Jesus could identify with both being truly human and truly God because Jesus knows what it's like to actually be both.
John 5:23 states that
All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.
It is my prayer that JWs open their minds to the plain sense of God’s Word and be willing, against any earthly religious organization, to honor and esteem the Son “just as” they honor and only esteem the Father.
JWs explain that the reason they use God’s name is to honor Him, yet the bible tells us that if we do not honor the Son “just as” we do the Father, we aren’t honoring the Father either. The reason we are told that all judgment has been committed to the Son is so that we may recognize His true and ultimate identity or nature.
Who but the Creator, God-Jehovah, could be the judge of all creation? So if all judgment has been committed to the Son, who must He be? This forces one to really think about it. Read the next post for part two, I have also sent you a private message.
This is for BWW and I have discussed this topic in great detail before. But my reply to your question on defining firstborn would have made my post very long. So here is part two. From reading Colossians 1:15, it does appear that Jesus could be the firstborn of every creature, a created being. Colossians 1:15 says:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
After reading this verse, there appears to be two possible interpretations. Either Jesus is the first created being of creation or He is over all creation being the source of creation, the Son of God. Which interpretation is Scripturally correct?
In order to answer this question, one must understand what the word firstborn means in the Bible. Here are some examples:
And his father Isaac said to him, ‘Who are you?’ So he said, “I am your son, your firstborn, Esau.’ (Genesis 27:32)
Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: “For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house” Genesis 41:52.
Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn Genesis 48:14.
And [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus NKJV emphasis added Matthew 1:25.
And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn emphasis add.
From the context of these scriptures, it is clear that firstborn means the first child born or the eldest child born in a family. Now let’s look at the use of firstborn in other places in the Bible.
In Jeremiah, it says:
They shall come with weeping, and with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, in a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a Father to Israel and Ephraim is my firstborn Jeremiah 31:9.
Here it says that Ephraim is the firstborn. Yet in Genesis 41:51 and 48:14 these Scriptures clearly say that Manasseh is the firstborn? So how can there be two firstborns? To some, this may be a contradiction. But upon examining the meaning of firstborn used in Jeremiah 31:9, it appears that Manasseh was simply removed from his first place position because of sin, losing all of his firstborn privileges his birth right allowed him to have (see 2Chronicles 33:1-10 and 2Kings 21:16). Ephraim was not the first son born by birth, and yet he is called the firstborn because after his brother Manasseh lost his firstborn privileges, Ephraim moved up to his brother’s first place position, becoming figuratively firstborn with all of the same privileges.
Let’s examine this further. The Greek equivalent of "firstborn" is prototokos, defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as: "Firstborn (usually as noun, literal or figurative.): —first begotten." Greek scholars agree that prototokos means “first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir.” Also, the word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy which Scripture supports. It is the same Greek word for firstborn in Colossians 1:15. In Jeremiah, it becomes clear that firstborn means first in rank or pre-eminent one.
There are other places in the bible where firstborn is used:
a. Firstborn of death - the most fatal, deadly disease (Job. 18:13).
b. Firstborn of the poor - pre-eminent in poverty (Isa. 14:30).
c. Israel my firstborn - pre-eminent in purpose (Exod. 4:22).
d. Make him the firstborn - highest, etc. (Psa. 89:27).
e. Firstborn ones - all the saved in the church of Christ (Heb. 12:23).
f. Jesus the firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29).
g. Firstborn of the dead (Rev. 1:5).
Since there are different uses for firstborn in the Bible, one can see how much confusion reading this word can cause. But once the meaning of the word is fully understood in its context, it will help eliminate this confusion.
Another point that needs to be made is that Scripture teaches that the firstborn son was given twice as much of the inheritance as the rest of the sons.
But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.(Deuteronomy 21:17)
The firstborn is to be the family priest and chief or head.
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is My son, My firstborn.(Exodus 4:22).
Here God calls Israel His firstborn son; He also calls Ephraim His firstborn, and in Colossians 1:15 Jesus is also called firstborn. Now we are left with a serious dilemma. If there are three firstborns, then how many firstborns does God have? Just from examining Scripture, it now becomes very evident that the firstborn in Genesis 48:14, Exodus 4:22 , and Colossians 1:15 aren’t dealing literally with chronology of first, second, and third respectively or the first child born into a family. But they deal with the direct result of becoming the pre-eminent one. Also, the context here in Exodus 4:22 appears to refer to the preeminent one (Israel) who is distinctly set apart by God to carry out His prerogatives as well as being heir. Thus, now it becomes clear that firstborn can mean first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir, and eldest child. Jesus was simply the cause of the creation, preexisting before God made all creation through him.
LOL, Obviously you are NOT listening. You not correct and got is ALL wrong AGAIN! You really do not know anything about JWs or what they believe. It is interesting to me that you have to misrepresent what JWs believe in order to criticize it. If you were really seeking the truth as you claim you would at least be able to accurately state what you disagree with.
I think I have stated what I have disagreed with in other forums. All you have to do is look for my threads about JWs, and you will see what I think about their theology and where I stand on what I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
Your disdain and aptitude for anti-JW rhetoric is apparent. However, your knowledge and reasoning ability seem to be deficient. It seems you put the JW organization up on a pillar in order to knock it down. You suggest that JWs think their salvation is through the organization. That it absurd!
I have no disdain for anyone's religion, including the JWs. Maybe I come across as someone who knows how the boldly state what he believes with God's help, and if I do, then I hope and pray you aren't offended by my position and how I interpret the Scriptures.
Maybe you haven't read all of my posts or threads in regard to JWs. What I have said is what I have personally experienced from JWs on this forum and in public, and you are now fitting the perfect example of the JW I have experienced. When you guys feel attacked, you attack back. You assume that most church goers can't defend what we believe and that we are under the snare of the Devil. Now this isn't me saying this, this come from your own Watchtower magazines when it attacks christendom for not beliving as JWs do.
Again, as I said in the previous post, if you feel or think that you have God's truth, then let that truth stand on its own merit. You don't need to keep telling me how what I believe is false, when basically I am going to tell you the same thing.
As far as my knowledge and reasoning ability, come on? I am using mainly Scripture. Now what I have seen you do, as many JWs do who are bold enough to respond to this thread, is cut and paste your Watchtower Literature into your post for the sake of using them to prove me wrong. Can you think on your own without the Watchtower's literature aiding you along in your reasoning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
We were talking about Christology and how the trinity belief is false. However, in your rant you say we follow Charles Taze Russell; do you think Russell was the one to identify the fallacy of the trinity?
I'm ranting? Wow you really are ASSuming. I was hoping that I was having intelligent dialogue about a topic that apparently moved you to respond since I was the person who originally started this topic anyway.
I know from reading you own publications that Charles Taze Russell was very instrumental after his death for his followers to form a religion based mainly on his teachings. Of course Charles wasn't or isn't the only person who doesn't agree with the trinity teaching. I get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
It is laughable that you suggest JWs disagree with Jesus. We are 100% in agreement with EVERYTHING in the Bible. It is that typical trinity blindness to think that if Jesus is not God, then they must not believe in Jesus. What a farce!
I don't know where you read that I said that JWs disagree with Jesus. I never said that. So my typical trinity blindness is what making me think the way I do. Hummmmmmmmmm? Who's being arrogant now? Again you just showed your typical JW arrogance, and I was waiting on it to come out. Thank you again for proving my point about how a typical JW behaves when they feel attacked for believing different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
Your other bolded point is just as inaccurate as the rest. You think JWs main goal is to convert you(us) from Christendom? LOL! We follow what Jesus commanded his faithful followers to do. (Matthew 28:18) When is the last time you followed his example and went out in the world teaching? If you had I confident you would know that your characterization is completely inaccurate.
Again, either you haven't been to your meetings lately or you just think that your door to door ministry is only for spreading your version of the Good News about God's Kingdom returning. In order for your organization to keep growing or to at least maintain its numbers, you all have to have students that you study with. Aren't you guys using WHAT Does THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH? for all new studies/students?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
It never fails that when anti-JWs pretend to want to discuss spiritual matters and the Bible, they quickly abandon that ruse and digress into their prejudices. And just like all prejudices they are based on inaccurate knowledge.
So because I disagree with what your believe I am being prejudice. Hummmmmm?
Since my intent in starting this thread was to discuss whether there a true religion or true worshipers of God or not, you seem to think that the JWs don't teach this, and that I am totally off the mark. Using the publication You Can Live Forever in Paradise 1982, 1989. You can go and read it for yourself, I am not making it up. It says on page 190 under the heading ONE TRUE RELIGION. " It is only logical that there would be one true religion. This is in harmony with the fact that the true God is a God, 'not of disorder, but of peace.' (1Corintians 14:33) The Bible says that actually there is only 'one faith.' (Ephesians 4:5) Who, then are the one who form the body of true worshipers today? We do not hesitate to say that they are Jehovah's Witnesses."
Do you agree with that statement in the You Can Live forever in Paradise book?
Also, this just clearly shows the Jehovah's Witnesses arrogance in full form, WE DO NOT HESITATE TO SAY. Wow, they are so sure that they are the right ones, that none of the rest of us have a chance unless we join their organization. God doesn't look at our religion. My name on any church's or religious organization's list doesn't mean that I will enter or see God's kingdom.
So because I disagree with what your believe I am being prejudice. Hummmmmm?
Because you use false information as the basis for your criticism. Disagreement about the truth is one thing, creating ficticious scenarios and then using them to criticize is prejudice.
Even when I explain the error in your characterizations you try to tell me what JWs are about. It apprears you are incapable of breaking free of your prejudices and discussing the truth.
Let’s examine this further. The Greek equivalent of "firstborn" is prototokos, defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as: "Firstborn (usually as noun, literal or figurative.): —first begotten." Greek scholars agree that prototokos means “first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir.” Also, the word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy which Scripture supports. It is the same Greek word for firstborn in Colossians 1:15. In Jeremiah, it becomes clear that firstborn means first in rank or pre-eminent one.
And after considerations all of your examples and this cursory look at the definition, it is your contention that firstborn is merely a synonym for first in rank or preeminent one? You are missng another key element. Can you see it and just dismiss it in the application at Col 1:15? Or, do you again just to ignore it because of its condemnation of the false trinity doctrine?
What is the other characteristic in EVERY example of FIRSTBORN?
God said he was going to Jesus from the dead
Jesus said he was going to raise himself from the dead
It is apparent that your playbook is to validify yourself on the trinity issue... to which I have not yet make any reference to, nor am I going to.
Once you admit( factually) that the Bible has the same names and titles, same qualities, same worthy of praise, doing the same acts of Jehovah being attributed to Jesus, then bring up the topic of the trinity. Until then...it's just nothing more than playbook responses from you.
Last edited by twin.spin; 10-25-2011 at 11:00 PM..
Since my intent in starting this thread was to discuss whether there a true religion or true worshipers of God or not, you seem to think that the JWs don't teach this, and that I am totally off the mark. Using the publication You Can Live Forever in Paradise 1982, 1989. You can go and read it for yourself, I am not making it up. It says on page 190 under the heading ONE TRUE RELIGION. " It is only logical that there would be one true religion. This is in harmony with the fact that the true God is a God, 'not of disorder, but of peace.' (1Corintians 14:33) The Bible says that actually there is only 'one faith.' (Ephesians 4:5) Who, then are the one who form the body of true worshipers today? We do not hesitate to say that they are Jehovah's Witnesses."
Do you agree with that statement in the You Can Live forever in Paradise book?
Also, this just clearly shows the Jehovah's Witnesses arrogance in full form, WE DO NOT HESITATE TO SAY. Wow, they are so sure that they are the right ones, that none of the rest of us have a chance unless we join their organization. God doesn't look at our religion. My name on any church's or religious organization's list doesn't mean that I will enter or see God's kingdom.
It appears you want to argue semantics. We are all in agreement that we will not be judged/evaluated based on our enrollment in a church. How you interpret that from what you read demonstrates your prejudicial tendency.
I agree 100% with the statements in the Bible and the application of them in the JWs publication. God does look at your "religion". The word "religion" is synonymous with "faith" not organization. If you base your faith on false doctrines then the "religion" based on those doctrines is FALSE. How can a FALSE religion be TRUE.
You do not need to join the "organization", you need to learn and follow the accurate knowledge taught by the Bible. However, where can you do this if you are not part of the "organization". With so many people like you making false and misleading statements about JWs, they will not learn in the public forum.
I have studied with and attended many different denominations and I know none of them teach the Bible accurately and are fraught with false doctrines and traditions. So, if you want to learn then what church, denomination, religion, etc... will you associate with? The one you think is teaching the TRUE faith/religion right?. Who would attend one they think is false?
You often say JWs are arrogant but i think it is confusion on your part. Confidence is often seen as arrogance. We see in modern christianity the trend is for inclusion, despite what the Bible says. The acceptance of homosexual behavior as no longer being a sin is one of those examples. If you believe that maintaining integrity in accordance to Bible teachings is arrogant then you are mistaken. Just because JWs are willing to stand out by not celebrating holidays with pagan religious origins does not make them arrogant. They are following what the Bible teaches. They are willing to put that FIRST; above the philosophies and traditions of men.
God said he was going to Jesus from the dead
Jesus said he was going to raise himself from the dead
It is apparent that your playbook is to validify yourself on the trinity issue... to which I have not yet make any reference to, nor am I going to.
Once you admit( factually) that the Bible has the same names and titles, same qualities, same worthy of praise, doing the same acts of Jehovah being attributed to Jesus, then bring up the topic of the trinity. Until then...it's just nothing more than playbook responses from you.
Why are the same titles, same qualities, same worthy of praise, and doing the same acts of Jehovah being attributed to Jesus?
SIMPLE
(Matthew28:18) . . .And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
As the Messiah, the SON was GIVEN ALL AUTHORITY by the FATHER. He is not the Father, and if he was God, the authority would not to be GIVEN. This is why you see those things in the OT attributed to Jehovah prior to Jesus coming, now being attributed to Jesus, the Messiah.
Your examples only reinforce this. AND not one of them says Jesus is God. You only infer this because or your trinity blindness and lack of understand of Matthew 28:18 and all the other scriptures like it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that all you discern?
