Why didn't Jesus just say he was an a...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#124 Jul 29, 2012
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>
If Jesus was an angel or archangel, WHY DIDN'T GOD or JESUS or JOHN JUST SAY SO?
Stay tuned for my next new post.
The WTS SUPER GREEK SCHOLAR on th Beliefnet forum has proven without doubt using the JW GREEK MANUSCRIPTS and rules of GREEK GRAMMAR and STRONG'S CONCODANCE that
In John 1:1 the WORD...LOGOS... is synomous with ARCHANGEL..
So reading John 1:1and John 1:14 this way could be considered correct.
"In the beginning was the ARCHANGEL and the ARCHANGEL was with God and the ARCHANGEL was a god"
"and the ARCHANGEL became flesh...."
Knowing what JW really believe about Michael and Jesus, and agreeing with YOUR GREEK EXPERT.
My new question will be John had FOUR chances to say ARCHANGEL, so why didn't he say it
AT LEAST ONCE!!
Unless Jesus wasn't and and "and the WORD was GOD"
For the benefit of JW's, I will bring over ALL HIS JW documentation for any JW who want to dispute your own expert. Remember he plays for your team and seems to be a farily high ranking JW and a major poster and defender of the faith on Beliefnet, you might want to post over there too. I do.
Hi MrDave

Nice name.

For the record I am not a JW or EX-JW. I also should state that I am sympathetic to some of the JW doctrines and, in particular, their view on the Trinity. I find the Trinity confusing but I am willing to listen to arguments that support it.

I have read your posts in Beliefnet and your interaction with Newtonian re:- the Archangel question and John 1:1(c). From the above post it appears that you are agreeing with Newtonian’s position that John 1:1(c) should not read “The Word was a Archangel” as that would be redundant in that Archangel is synomous for Word therefore,it could read “The Chief Spokeman was a Chief Messenger”. Newtonian also suggested that what John was reminding his readers was that the Word was a deity by saying “a god”. Is this your understanding of the debate you had with Newtonian -- at least in regards to the limited extent I noted above?

All the best

Dave

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#125 Jul 29, 2012
Hi

Pardon my jumping-in. Hope you don't mind.
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>
"little lamb"
As always a thoughtful and interesting reply.
Not to be nitpicky but are you sure about the second THEON, seems even JW Greek experts say it was THEOS meaning God or a god.
John states " In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with HO THEON, and the WORD was THEON..."
"theos" - See Strong's G2316.

And there is no definite article before the "theos" at John 1:1c
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>

"But trinity is not scriptural"
Don't have a problem about Jesus being CALLED god. Isaiah said he'd be CALLED..mighty god???
I think even in the NWT in Isaiah 9:6 the words are capitilized meaning more then a god.
6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
It is proper English to capitalize titles used as names. For example: The President, The Queen, The Prime Minister.

Interesting thing about that "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6. Did you notice one verse further? All the names that the "child" will be called is not guaranteed by the "child" but by someone else. You know who?

"The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this."

So whatever "God" you make of this "Mighty God" is is certainly not at the same power level of the God that guarantees and empowers all that he will become.
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>

I do agree Trintiy does not appear in Bible, but here is the start of what I believe is the teaching of the Trinity.
I think for something as important as the Trinity, which clearly redefines the historical and Biblical understanding of God who is God Himself Only, we need an EXPLICIT teaching stating that important change of doctrine rather than resorting to a connect-the-dots approach with its inherent inaccuracy and resorting to interpretation.

I think what you need to do is to produce the static verse from the Bible we can all turn to where we clearly see the Trinity teaching, without personal interpretation, that God is composed of three persons that combine to form that compound "God".

:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#126 Jul 29, 2012
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey "little lamb" missed your posts the last couple days.
I totally agree with you that these phrases do not appear in the Bible, neither do lots of other expressions that your team and my team use. Ex. show me ORGANIZATION or DISCRETE SLAVE, etc.
Irrelevant. We are not talking about church terms used internally or generally by various churches. We are talking about the Trinity doctrine.

And it would certainly help your Trinitarian arguments to have at least the doctrine's namesake mentioned somewhere in Scripture along with the doctrine's definition.

:)
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Read your own Bible in Matthew 1:28 without WTS explanation and deny that YOUR BIBLE says
the child will be called, Immanuel, GOD WITH US.
IT'S IN YOUR NWT.
In the Bible, names have meanings.

Immanuel, GOD WITH US -- meaning that God has turned His attention to His people by sending His representative - his Son.

Also note in the Bible that no one went around calling the Son of God "Immanuel" but as "Jesus" as that was is given name.
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>

"WHO IS LIKE GOD" does not appear in ANY ONE'S Bible.
Now you're being facetious in the other direction.

"Who Is Like God" is the meaning of "Michael". You'll find "Michael" in ANY ONE'S Bible.

***
Michael meaning and name origin

Michael \m(i)-chael\ as a boy's name (also used as girl's name Michael), is pronounced MYE-kal. It is of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Michael is "who resembles God?". Biblical: Michael is the archangel (chief or principal angel) who defeats the dragon. He and Gabriel are angels given personal names in the canonical Bible. Many saints, emperors, and kings have borne the name, and there are many variants, male and female. Micheal, the Gaelic spelling, is frequently used. This may be intentional, or it may be an accidental transposition of the "ae" vowels. Michael and Angelo are frequently blended in Latin-based language-speaking countries, as in Michelangelo Buonarroti, the Italian artist. Miguel (mee-GEL) is a Spanish and Portuguese form; Michel is French and popular in the Netherlands; Michiel (mee-KHEEL) is Dutch; Mikael, Mikell, Mikkel are Scandinavian; Michail, Mikhail are Russian; Michal is Polish; Miko is Slavic; Mikel, Miquel are Basque, French. Baseball celebrity Mickey Mantle; actors Mickey Rooney, Michael Caine, Michael J. Fox, Michel Chiklis, Michael Gambon, Michael Imperioli, Mike Myers; singers Michael Jackson, Mick Jagger; cartoon celebrity Mickey Mouse; Soviet statesman Mikhail Gorbachev; hockey player Mike Modano; fashion designer Michael Kors.
***

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Micha...

Yes! From a baby names website!

ROFL!

“Delivering the Gospel”

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#127 Jul 29, 2012
Boni wrote:
Hi
Pardon my jumping-in. Hope you don't mind.
<quoted text>
"theos" - See Strong's G2316.
And there is no definite article before the "theos" at John 1:1c
<quoted text>
It is proper English to capitalize titles used as names. For example: The President, The Queen, The Prime Minister.
Interesting thing about that "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6. Did you notice one verse further? All the names that the "child" will be called is not guaranteed by the "child" but by someone else. You know who?
"The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this."
So whatever "God" you make of this "Mighty God" is is certainly not at the same power level of the God that guarantees and empowers all that he will become.
<quoted text>
I think for something as important as the Trinity, which clearly redefines the historical and Biblical understanding of God who is God Himself Only, we need an EXPLICIT teaching stating that important change of doctrine rather than resorting to a connect-the-dots approach with its inherent inaccuracy and resorting to interpretation.
I think what you need to do is to produce the static verse from the Bible we can all turn to where we clearly see the Trinity teaching, without personal interpretation, that God is composed of three persons that combine to form that compound "God".
:)
Hey Boni,welcome back.I can always tell when you are back,the Trinity threads start to hit the home page.

Good to see that you are still following orders.

Acts 10:42-43 [nwt]
42 Also, he ORDERED US TO PREACH to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the One decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.

43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting FAITH IN HIM GETS FORGIVENESS OF SINS through his name.”

And that your mind is open to the Good News.

Luke 24:45-48 [nwt]
45 Then he OPENED up their minds fully to grasp the MEANING of the Scriptures,

46 and he said to them:“In this way it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day,

47 and on the basis of HIS NAME repentance for FORGIVENESS WOULD BE PREACHED in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem,

48 YOU are to be witnesses of THESE THINGS.

And that this is your ministry from God.

2 Cor.5:18 [nwt]
18 But all things are FROM GOD, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the MINISTRY OF THE RECONCILIATION,

Yep! good to see that you are going by the book,or are you?

Have you EVER told anyone any of the above? If not,then why not?
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#128 Jul 30, 2012
[ BONI

Thank you for your response and comments.

FROM THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:

Isaiah 55:8“For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts.

Isaiah 55: 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.

Isaiah 7:14Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el.

Matthew 1: 23 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im·man´u·el,” which means, when translated,“With Us Is God.”

Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

John 20:28 In answer Thomas said to him:“My Lord and my God!”

NOW QUOTE FROM ANY BIBLE WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION

JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

The point of this thread was..

If Jesus was Michael, then WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SAY SO?

Just ONCE in three years after he received Michael's "personal life force" and supposedly then knew he was Michael.

Why didn't He say He was Micahael the Archangel..........

UNLESS HE REALLY WASN'T

MAYBE "and the WORD was GOD".
aardvark

Blairgowrie, UK

#129 Jul 30, 2012
MrDave wrote:
MAYBE "and the WORD was GOD".
Mr Dave

You really are the limit

Any twelve year old child at Kingdom Hall will tell you that when John said "the Word was God" he really meant "the Word was Michael the Archangel".

Now if a twelve year old child can understand that, why do you struggle to comprehend this vital fundamental point?

It is simply a matter of understanding plain English.

<forgive my sardonic humour>
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#130 Jul 30, 2012
Boni

Sorry, as I move up from bottom replying my responses are not in order with the posts. I'm new to topix and wish there were some way to put newest posts first, if you know how I would appreciate your sharing with me.

First, I was not debating with "little lamb" the Greek. He had used THEON where I think it was THEOS.
Not to debate but to save him from being attacked by all the GREEK EXPERTS.

Without knowing a thing about Hebrew and / or Greek but having any Bible knowledge, it is well known the Capitals or no capitals has meaning. This helps indicate what the meaning or what word is behind the English, we read, you know that, come on.

God is different then god, LORD is different then Lord which is different then lord.

You said........

"I think for something as important as the Trinity, which clearly redefines the historical and Biblical understanding of God who is God Himself Only, we need an EXPLICIT teaching stating that important change of doctrine rather than resorting to a connect-the-dots approach with its inherent inaccuracy and resorting to interpretation.

I think what you need to do is to produce the static verse from the Bible we can all turn to where we clearly see the Trinity teaching, without personal interpretation, that God is composed of three persons that combine to form that compound "God"."

I ADMIT I CAN NOT...BUT CAN'T THE SAME BE SAID FOR..........

I think for something as important as the JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL, which clearly redefines the historical and Biblical understanding of God who is God Himself Only, we need an EXPLICIT teaching stating that important change of doctrine rather than resorting to a connect-the-dots approach with its inherent inaccuracy and resorting to interpretation.

I think what you need to do is to produce THE static verse from the Bible we can all turn to where we clearly see the JESUS IS MICHAEL teaching, without personal interpretation, that JESUS IS AN ARCHANGEL.

BRAVO, AMEN, MY POINT EXACTLY... LET'S RELY ON EXPLIICT SCRIPTURES WE ALL CAN READ

THANK YOU BONI FOR THAT
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#131 Jul 30, 2012
aardvark wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr Dave
You really are the limit
Any twelve year old child at Kingdom Hall will tell you that when John said "the Word was God" he really meant "the Word was Michael the Archangel".
Now if a twelve year old child can understand that, why do you struggle to comprehend this vital fundamental point?
It is simply a matter of understanding plain English.
<forgive my sardonic humour>
Aardvark

Thank you for your post.

I flunked the "are you as smart as a fifth grader TV shows" so that may explain a lot....LOL.

Is this Standard WTS teaching?..John said "the Word was God"

I have it in print with your name.ummmm

Watch out, I may use that that this is what a JW is saying.

So don't pick on my IQ which matches my waist line...LOL.

OK, I'll grant you a mulligan on that one.

OK PLAIN ENGLISH IT IS:

FROM THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:

Isaiah 55:8“For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts.

Isaiah 55: 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.

Isaiah 7:14Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el.

Matthew 1: 23 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im·man´u·el,” which means, when translated,“With Us Is God.”

Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

John 20:26 Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said:“May YOU have peace.” 27 Next he said to Thomas:“Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” 28 In answer Thomas said to him:“My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him:“Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.”

PLAIN ENOUGH FOR ME....

WHY NOT YOU?

WHY DO YOU NEED SOMEONE ELSE OR SOME ORGANIZATION TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU???

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#132 Jul 30, 2012
MrDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Aardvark
Thank you for your post.
I flunked the "are you as smart as a fifth grader TV shows" so that may explain a lot....LOL.
Is this Standard WTS teaching?..John said "the Word was God"
I have it in print with your name.ummmm
Watch out, I may use that that this is what a JW is saying.
So don't pick on my IQ which matches my waist line...LOL.
OK, I'll grant you a mulligan on that one.
OK PLAIN ENGLISH IT IS:
FROM THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:
Isaiah 55:8“For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts.
Isaiah 55: 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.
Isaiah 7:14Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el.
Matthew 1: 23 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im·man´u·el,” which means, when translated,“With Us Is God.”
Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
John 20:26 Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said:“May YOU have peace.” 27 Next he said to Thomas:“Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” 28 In answer Thomas said to him:“My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him:“Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.”
PLAIN ENOUGH FOR ME....
WHY NOT YOU?
WHY DO YOU NEED SOMEONE ELSE OR SOME ORGANIZATION TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU???
Thank you for continuing to stay biblical, and not allowing some here to turn the debates into a mudslinging contest. There seems to be more "he said, she said" threads than biblical threads.

None of the "gossip" threads glorify God. At any time there can be between 100 to 150 silent viewers, obviously searching for answers. I pray the HS gives us the know how and words to post when the timing is right.

Much love brother.

ps: the WT evidently believes Jesus was playing a deception trick on the apostles in John 20........(deception, lying, whats the difference?)
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#133 Jul 30, 2012
Kevin 321 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for continuing to stay biblical, and not allowing some here to turn the debates into a mudslinging contest. There seems to be more "he said, she said" threads than biblical threads.
None of the "gossip" threads glorify God. At any time there can be between 100 to 150 silent viewers, obviously searching for answers. I pray the HS gives us the know how and words to post when the timing is right.
Much love brother.
ps: the WT evidently believes Jesus was playing a deception trick on the apostles in John 20........(deception, lying, whats the difference?)
Kevin321

Thank you brother, I have appreciated your support in other posts.

I noticed no one wins the debates or arguments or My Greek vesus your Greek.

I have family members who are JW's and wish to talk intelligently with them, so I came on the forum to "brush up" on WTS teaching's.

Two weeks ago while lying in bed I pray,

"Lord, how do you want to use me to be a witness without the futility that I see on this and Beliefnet"?

Through the leading of the Holy Spirit the answer came almost immediately.

Ask them this question, don't debate only point to my scriptures found in their Bible.

I was so excited I got up in the middle of the night, logged on and did as the Holy Spirit led.

I put the exact same question on TOPIX and BELIEFNET.

Whenever I seem to hit a difficult response, I ask for leading again and again the Holy Spirit gives me a question to ask them so I have multiple threads on both, sadly I failed to make the heading the same wording. I have the same forum name on both "MrDave".

I prayed the other night for some sight of "FRUIT" and on this forum another Dave replied he had been reading the same thread on the other forum. He was not JW or ex-JW, but was considering what they had been saying, but ......

This man is searching and reading the two JW's forum to find the truth, thank God he is finding a contrary view to the WTS.

But we must keep it civil, kind, not name calling, no finger pointing, etc. etc.

Keep up the good work, I have read your posts on other threads, but I usually do reply, got enough places to keep track of, LOL.

God Bless

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#134 Jul 30, 2012
Christian Trucker wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Boni,welcome back.I can always tell when you are back,the Trinity threads start to hit the home page.
Good to see that you are still following orders.
Acts 10:42-43 [nwt]
42 Also, he ORDERED US TO PREACH to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the One decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.
43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting FAITH IN HIM GETS FORGIVENESS OF SINS through his name.”
And that your mind is open to the Good News.
Luke 24:45-48 [nwt]
45 Then he OPENED up their minds fully to grasp the MEANING of the Scriptures,
46 and he said to them:“In this way it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day,
47 and on the basis of HIS NAME repentance for FORGIVENESS WOULD BE PREACHED in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem,
48 YOU are to be witnesses of THESE THINGS.
And that this is your ministry from God.
2 Cor.5:18 [nwt]
18 But all things are FROM GOD, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the MINISTRY OF THE RECONCILIATION,
Yep! good to see that you are going by the book,or are you?
Have you EVER told anyone any of the above? If not,then why not?
Hi back, CT.

Glad to see that after all this time your sarcasm remains the same.

Got something to add regarding my post which you quoted in its entirety but didn't address any point in it? Or are you still playing your old game of Change-The-Subject?

:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#135 Jul 30, 2012
MrDave wrote:
[ BONI
Thank you for your response and comments.
You're welcome. I noticed you didn't defend any of my attacks. That's good.

It appears you want put that behind you and move on. Ok, let's move on - but I'm only letting the line loose; I'm not letting you off the hook.
MrDave wrote:
FROM THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:
Isaiah 55:8“For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts.
Isaiah 55: 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.
Isaiah 7:14Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el.
Matthew 1: 23 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im·man´u·el,” which means, when translated,“With Us Is God.”
Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
John 20:28 In answer Thomas said to him:“My Lord and my God!”
NOW QUOTE FROM ANY BIBLE WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION
JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL
The point of this thread was..
If Jesus was Michael, then WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SAY SO?
I can follow that up by asking, if Jesus was part of the Trinity, then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE IN THE TRINITY, INCLUDING JESUS, SAY SO?

Sorry, I've been meaning to play that for a while. Thanks for the oppertunity.

:D

Are you familiar with Proverbs 2. It beings by saying:

NLT Pr 2:1 My child, listen to what I say, and treasure my commands. 2 Tune your ears to wisdom, and concentrate on understanding. 3 Cry out for insight, and ask for understanding. 4 Search for them as you would for silver; seek them like hidden treasures. 5 Then you will understand what it means to fear the LORD, and you will gain knowledge of God. 6 For the LORD grants wisdom! From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.

So, how well do you find "hidden treasures" from God's Word? Those that stay on the surface will only get what's on the surface, those that dig with appreciation will get and find more.
MrDave wrote:
Just ONCE in three years after he received Michael's "personal life force" and supposedly then knew he was Michael.
Why didn't He say He was Micahael the Archangel..........
UNLESS HE REALLY WASN'T
MAYBE "and the WORD was GOD".
Or maybe "the WORD was a god". A powerful being who was "WITH" God who served as God's Principal Spokesman and Representative.

:)
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#136 Jul 30, 2012
Dave47

What a great name! Thanks for replying. Sorry So Slow, but this is my 3rd attempt. Maybe it's me....LOL.

First, your the first to say your on both TOPIX and BELIEFNET as I am.

Just in case, I am a Trinitarian and Newtonian is a farily high up in the WTS JW with great Greek knowledge, but he only considers the Greek grammar that supports WTS, all else is debated.

I believe John 1:1c says "and the Word was God" and Denis and Newtonian have been debating this way too much since neither is convincing anyone of their opinion, but whatever.

On both TOPIX and BELIEFNET I asked a simple question.

If Jesus was Michael, why didn't he just say so?

You understood Newtonian's reply that in "and the Word was a god" that "a god" and "WORD" could mean Archangel, as Newtonian proved to ????

But I do agree if LOGOS is synomous with WORD and could be translated Archangel and "a god" could also mean "Archangel" then Newtonian is correct that it would be redundant to say:

"and the Archangel was an Archangel", or any other combination of the terms.

So why fight Newtonian, go along and I asked him if I could read John 1:1 and 14 this way.

BTW, no response yet, I think he smells a trap.

"In the beginning was the Archangel, and the Archangel was with God, and the ArchAngel was a god"

"And the Archangel became flesh...."

If he says YES, then my new question would be since John knew Greek and since John knew Jesus was an Archangel, AND JOHN could have said it in other places up to FOUR places.

Why didn't John say it AT LEAST ONCE???? No more "IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT" answer.

I have another question for JW's to consider, since JESUS KNEW HE WAS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL,

why didn't Jesus JUST SAY IT ONCE in three years???

Dave,

Sounds like your mind is not made up yet. Some thoughts?

1. Yes the word Trinity never appears in any Bible but that does not make it so. JW have not 1 Bible verse that says Jesus is Michael in PLAIN ENGLISH. They have to do a connect the dots approach, as Trinitarians also have to do. There is GREEK GRAMMAR rules that can say it our way or their way. So I avoid that.

2. The WTS Bible the NWT does plainly say
"the child (WE BOTH AGREE IS JESUS) shall be called IMMANUEL which being interpreted means "WITH US IS GOD". Matthew 1:23
They can try to explain it away, but Jehovah said it plainly in their Bible, please consider that.

3. John 20;21 Thomas said to him (WE AGREE AGAIN, JESUS), "My Lord and My God".
Again they try to explain it away, but Jehovah said it plainly in their Bible, please consider that.

4. In a Bible acceptable to me, then add in:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and theWord was with God and the Word was God"

I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Plus many more verses.

Yes our doctrine of Trinity is difficult to understand but it is indicated that Jesus is certainly more then an angel or archangel, so give our views a chance.

I would be glad to help you with our side, you can compare to their side BUT HEAR BOTH SIDES from EACH SIDE not them saying what I believe. Might not get represented correctly, NO JW would want me representing them.

Do they have confusing doctrines, you bet, try to understand the MICHAEL BECOMES JESUS BECOMES MICHAEL "life force" teaching. Plus much much more. Jesus's body ceases to exist?
Jehovah did not KNOW some things like Adam and Eve would sin?

Or Dave listen only to Dave, LOL.....sorry I won't ever say listen only to me

“"Leave the dead horses alone"”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#137 Jul 30, 2012
MrDave wrote:
Dave47
What a great name! Thanks for replying. Sorry So Slow, but this is my 3rd attempt. Maybe it's me....LOL.
Hi Dave, I have found if you take a while constructing a post it times out and won't post it when you click POST COMMENT. I found the best way around this was to make sure you put any posts that take a bit of time into notepad and save them. Also if it doesn't post then normally you can click back on your browser and your messege will be there still for you to copy and paste.

I usually log out of the thread onto the main forum page and then go back into the thread and paste my reply into the comment box and then it seems to work.

Hope that helps. Take care.
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#138 Jul 30, 2012
Boni:
Thank you for your reply and I thought you'd never(or any other JW's ask)….LOL.

Your question,

"if Jesus was part of the Trinity, then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE IN THE TRINITY, INCLUDING JESUS, SAY SO?
Seems to be a followup to your comment in post #126 “Irrelevant. We are not talking about church terms used internally or generally by various churches. We are talking about the Trinity doctrine. And it would certainly help your Trinitarian arguments to have at least the doctrine's namesake mentioned somewhere in Scripture along with the doctrine's definition.”

Where did the WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TRINITY DOCRINE statement come from.

You used the word TRINITY far more often then I.

I went back through all #136 posts and I never made any reference to TRINITY DOCTRINE except in post#77 where I say my man all alone on the desert island with no religious knowledge, LIKE THE TRINITY DOCTRINE….

If I am wrong on that please point out the posts # because I rushed through them.

Now I did refer to myself as a Trinitarian, but hardly got into any discussion about what that meant because I believe that is a term JW’s use referring to us, it’s not a term we would use speaking of ourselves, I just want to be clear that posters knew where I was coming from.

And THANK YOU for the opportunity to answer your inquiry, I bet you thought you were being clever...LOL.

But since you asked me to defend or explain something you brought up not me then I get set a couple rules before I begin.
Rule 1:
I or anyone else defending the Trinity doctrine gets to use whatever Bible they choose, including yours.
Rule 2:
Since this thread was created to deal with John 1:1 and especially John 1:1c.(Just read the thread heading.)

The subject of this thread is Jesus and who he is based on John 1:1c, not the TRINITY.

Then the question must be changed to be the opposite of my original question.
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

Your question,

"if Jesus was part of the Trinity, then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE IN THE TRINITY, INCLUDING JESUS, SAY SO?

Must be changed to this question:

If Jesus was God then why didn’t He just say so?

If you agree to that then I will answer that question.

OK, I am presenting Jesus as God and not as an ArchAngel, I am not arguing the Trinity doctrine. I will send time explaining what I believe as a Trinitarian, but God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit are not required to defend the term Trinity.

Do I believe the concept of the Trinity exists in the Bible and I would gladly comment on that. You already mentioned your encounters with Trinitarians. But you can't hold God, Jesus or Holy Spirit hostage to a term meant to mean concepts found in the Bible.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#139 Jul 30, 2012
MrDave wrote:
Dave47
What a great name! Thanks for replying. Sorry So Slow, but this is my 3rd attempt. Maybe it's me....LOL.
First, your the first to say your on both TOPIX and BELIEFNET as I am.
Just in case, I am a Trinitarian and Newtonian is a farily high up in the WTS JW with great Greek knowledge, but he only considers the Greek grammar that supports WTS, all else is debated.
I believe John 1:1c says "and the Word was God" and Denis and Newtonian have been debating this way too much since neither is convincing anyone of their opinion, but whatever.
On both TOPIX and BELIEFNET I asked a simple question.
If Jesus was Michael, why didn't he just say so?
You understood Newtonian's reply that in "and the Word was a god" that "a god" and "WORD" could mean Archangel, as Newtonian proved to ????
But I do agree if LOGOS is synomous with WORD and could be translated Archangel and "a god" could also mean "Archangel" then Newtonian is correct that it would be redundant to say:
"and the Archangel was an Archangel", or any other combination of the terms.
So why fight Newtonian, go along and I asked him if I could read John 1:1 and 14 this way.
BTW, no response yet, I think he smells a trap.
"In the beginning was the Archangel, and the Archangel was with God, and the ArchAngel was a god"
"And the Archangel became flesh...."
If he says YES, then my new question would be since John knew Greek and since John knew Jesus was an Archangel, AND JOHN could have said it in other places up to FOUR places.
Why didn't John say it AT LEAST ONCE???? No more "IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT" answer.
I have another question for JW's to consider, since JESUS KNEW HE WAS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL,
why didn't Jesus JUST SAY IT ONCE in three years???

..........

..........
Or Dave listen only to Dave, LOL.....sorry I won't ever say listen only to me
Hi MrDave

Thanks for the informative post.

Sorry I had to delete part of your post so I could get in my answer.

I apologize for leaving the wrong impression that I am a member on Beliefnet----I am just a visitor from time to time. Like a lot of posters here I visit a lot of different forums to get a feel for what is been debated out there. I like this forum because there is a lot of traffic with posters not afraid to say how they feel on issues. There are sharp differences in doctrines as well, which makes, for me at least, for interesting discussion.
I understand the question you ask “If Jesus was Michael then WHY DIDN’T HE JUST SAY SO?” is a fair question, but as Boni noted in pos#t135:

“If Jesus was Michael, then WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SAY SO?”
I can follow that up by asking, if Jesus was part of the Trinity, then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE IN THE TRINITY, INCLUDING JESUS, SAY SO?

This is also a fair question.

I note that you ask the following why wasn’t John 1:1 wrote as follows:

"In the beginning was the Archangel, and the Archangel was with God, and the ArchAngel was a god"

A good question, but isn’t it also a fair question to ask why couldn’t John 1:1 be written as follows:

“In the beginning there was the Word who is God the Son, and within the One being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.”

Both legitimate questions and no slam dunk answers! I do however, look at John 1:1 being a Prologue or introduction to the Book of John; then,if anywhere, this should be the place where Jesus is introduced and explained. My confusion lies in the fact that regardless of how one spins John 1:1 the Trinity is simply not there; I would have to go to other scriptures to develop the concept. The question that bothers me-----Why in an introduction to such an important subject should I have to do this?

Anyway Dave, those are my opening comments. Hope I haven’t muddied the waters. LOL.

All the Best

Dave
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#140 Jul 30, 2012
Gods Kingdom Rules wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Dave, I have found if you take a while constructing a post it times out and won't post it when you click POST COMMENT. I found the best way around this was to make sure you put any posts that take a bit of time into notepad and save them. Also if it doesn't post then normally you can click back on your browser and your messege will be there still for you to copy and paste.
I usually log out of the thread onto the main forum page and then go back into the thread and paste my reply into the comment box and then it seems to work.
Hope that helps. Take care.
Gods Kingdom Rules:

Thank you for your advice and I glad it wasn't just me. I will do as you suggest.

Since you got my question from Dave47's posts, if like me, I think you see someone searching for truth.

Whether I hear any more from him or not I do not know, but if he does come to me with questions, it might be on Beliefnet.

Can I suggest or use you as the JW representative?

I want Dave47 to truely consider both sides of the argument.

I am most impressed with how you represent your belief system. I think your sincerely concerned about this man's eternal destiny, as I am. Think any JW would say, go ask MrDave what he thinks...LOL.

Sound fair?

I wish the three of us could sit in a restaurant over a cup of (coffee, tea, etc) and discuss it openly with Dave47.
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#141 Jul 30, 2012
Dave47

Thank you for your reply. I am not a member of either forum either but do post on both.

"A good question, but isn’t it also a fair question to ask why couldn’t John 1:1 be written as follows:

“In the beginning there was the Word who is God the Son, and within the One being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.”

I think this would be an excellent way to read John 1:1 for those who believe that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God. I believe that and will gladly give scriptures to support that.

But for JW's they would go right to the Greek to dispute each and every concept that suggest anything contrary to what they believe.

Michael is the name of the Archangel, and they give a lot of Greek to prove that John 1:1c really says "and the Word was a god" as it appears in their Bible, if asked what is "a god" then more Greek to prove "a god" means Michael the Archangel.

That I expected but Newtonian's continuing on to prove WORD also could mean Michael the Archangel surprised me. So I went along with it.

Michael the Archangel is found in the Bible and they change John 1:1 to say John is speaking of him. They say Jesus is Michael and will argue to the death.

I read John 1:1c this way "and the Word was God", thus Word in John 1:1 & 14 can not mean Michael.

So I took THEIR TERM for "a god" who they teach is Michael the Archangel and asked
why Jesus never called himself Michael the Archangel not once in three years."

So essentially I was saying I would only defend what terms are in evidence. Jesus is God or Jesus is Michael the Archangel

"and the Word was God." Word can only mean Jesus, but which Jesus?

So the same question to me should be a question on WHO WAS BEING described in John1:1c using the terms found there.

Their question should be,
“If John says Jesus is God, then why didn't Jesus say He was God?”

The exact same question I asked the JW’s
“if John says Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then why didn’t Jesus say He was Michael the Archangel?”

I carefully avoided using the term TRINITY anywhere in my thread to avoid defending a man-made term not inspried of God, but used to describe who I believe God is.

So in neither case is the TRINITY stated or implied. There is nothing here speaking of the Holy Spirit.

So to try to defend the term TRINITY here is to defend something not in evidence here.

But if you would like to defend why Jesus never said he was part of the Trinity, feel welcome and good luck.

And anyone else is welcome to answer Boni's question if they wish.

"Boni also said And it would certainly help your Trinitarian arguments to have at least the doctrine's namesake mentioned somewhere in Scripture along with the doctrine's definition.”

Once again she is suggesting God didn't write His Book correctly. God choose to prove Himself and Prove Jesus as His Son and as the second person of God and to introduce the Holy Spirit as God HIS WAY.

If it doesn't satisfy us then it's us in the wrong NOT GOD.

Looking forward to future posts.
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#142 Jul 30, 2012
Dave47

I just spent an hour responding to the following only to have TOPIX lose it with their POST COMMENT command. Undoubtedly the poorest forum have ever been on.

I will respond to this ver early tomorrow, time for olympics.

Both legitimate questions and no slam dunk answers! I do however, look at John 1:1 being a Prologue or introduction to the Book of John; then,if anywhere, this should be the place where Jesus is introduced and explained. My confusion lies in the fact that regardless of how one spins John 1:1 the Trinity is simply not there; I would have to go to other scriptures to develop the concept. The question that bothers me-----Why in an introduction to such an important subject should I have to do this?
MrDave

Leominster, MA

#143 Jul 31, 2012
Dave47
I won’t say what time it is, but I am a bit of an insomniac so I do a lot of my responding when everyone in USA sleeps.

Now I would like to give my thoughts on your remarks and questions.
“I do however, look at John 1:1 being a Prologue or introduction to the Book of John”
I agree, I think most people do.

“then,if anywhere, this should be the place where Jesus is introduced and explained.”
I think Jesus is being introduced and explained, Jesus is explained to be God, not the TRINITY. Thus my avoidance of Boni’s question concerning the Trinity.

JW's say Jesus is Michael the Archangel so I questioned THAT,

I say Jesus is God, John said Jesus is God, so Boni should be asking me why Jesus never said He was God.

Of course we know that Jesus said He was God many times.

“My confusion lies in the fact that regardless of how one spins John 1:1 the Trinity is simply not there”
Got to agree. God chooses not to introduce the Trinty here, the Holy Spirit is still a secret, even though once introduced, we can easily see the working of the Holy Spirit through out the Bible beginning with Genesis.

At the Bible school I attended, they suggested that certain Old Testament stories were a picture of New Testament people or events.

These were not to be taken dogmatically, but offered excellent sermon material and it was interesting.

For example, Abraham sacrificing Isaac being a picture of God the Father sacrificing God the Son, Jesus. Isaac showed unquestioning obedience to be sacrificed as did Jesus. The Father’s will over the Son’s will.

The life of Joseph as a picture of the Jews rejection of Jesus but His love for them. Ever notice not 1 negati thing about Joseph mentioned.

And others OT stories, in fact I believe just about any OT story can be related to Jesus.

Someone asked is there an OT story that pictures the Trinity. The teacher said, YES,,the story where Abraham sends out an obedient servant to find a wife(bride) for Isaac in Genesis 24. Abraham as God the Father, Isaac as God the Son, the servant as the God the Holy Spirit, the bride as the church.

Seems so clear looking back, to me at least, but would never have been seen that way until the Holy Spirit was introduced and explained.

“I would have to go to other scriptures to develop the concept. The question that bothers me-----
“Why in an introduction to such an important subject should I have to do this?”
I understand your frustration for I feel it too. How often I’ve thought, God, if only you had said this here, or that there, then our job of witnessing would be so much easier. Just one SLAM DUNK verse would end all the debate, division. How many denominations are there just because people interpret a single verse differently. The thought has even passed through my mind, God you seem to be working against yourself. I doubt that I’m the only one to think that.
Then the Holy Spirit would whisper,“trust me, it’s all working out exactly as I planned. All thing s work together for good…etc.” It does help to be a bit of a Calvinist, LOL. If you don’t understand that, I could explain that, but not on a JW site, it has nothing to do with them and I don’t want to get JW’s thinking it’s a subject for debate.

Dave so far I have enjoyed your posts. So you don't “think more highly of me then I deserve, let me tell you about me, once you know, you might think, why am I talking with this dope…lol”

I am not a pastor or missionary, I did go to Bible school, but never went into ministry, God had other plans for me. I was a SS teacher, was children’s church teacher, notice the was. I’m not a church member or consider myself a member of any denomination. When asked what I belong to, I will say “follower of the book”, an Islamic term for serious Christians as compared to “idol worshippers”. I am not starting my own church and I do attend church regularly, but resist joining.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Poor Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Inc... 2 min True Christian wi... 11
I cannot find my thread on Islam - can any of you? 11 min Newtonian 19
"Other sheep" - Led by God's Spirit? 13 min wow 1,367
News Lack of education leads to lost dreams, low inc... 2 hr Jace 8
Ready to obey ANY instruction? 2 hr Jace 6
TELL ME WHERE I GO WRONG.. puffy expecially 7 hr ihveit 6
1,000 vs. 0 (paradise earth) 7 hr ru4rill 4
Why is there no such place as hell? 8 hr rsss1 163
Who are the JWs really following? 8 hr rsss1 32
Jehovah's Witness and a Christian 8 hr ihveit 185
More from around the web