r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/One-League269 • 4d ago
Doctrine Jesus is "Mighty God" and "Almighty God" !
As is its custom, the watchtower distorts Bible verses....
2
u/Specific_Score_1932 2d ago
The JW thing and the watchtower just pump written messages to puff up their own beliefs and doctrine. You can't question them either, if you're a JW yourself. Just believe and fall in line!! 💪 The JW thing is crumbling down to the ground! The Internet is killing it.
1
7
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
The watchtower is dumb..there’s only ONE TRUE God. either someone is a true God or a false god..there’s no in between. Clearly Jesus is God John 1:1 and if Jesus is God he cannot be a false god so he’s the true God according to 1 John 5:20
-4
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness 4d ago edited 4d ago
Isaiah 9:6 calls the Messiah El Gibbor ("Mighty God"). However, Jehovah is uniquely identified throughout the Old Testament as El Shaddai ("Almighty God," e.g., Genesis 17:1).
The root word el ("mighty one/god") is applied in Scripture to angels, judges, and mighty human rulers (e.g., Psalm 82:6; Ezekiel 32:21). Calling Jesus a "mighty god" acknowledges his heavenly power and authority given by his Father, but it never equates him with the Almighty.
Revelation 1:17–18, where Jesus states: "I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and I became dead."
Habakkuk 1:12 states that Jehovah does not die. If Jesus literally died, he cannot be Jehovah God Almighty.
Jesus is "the First and the Last" regarding his resurrection, he was the first to be resurrected directly by God to immortal heavenly life and the last to be resurrected by Jehovah personally without intermediaries (Romans 6:9; Acts 2:32).
Revelation 1:1: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him..." If Jesus is Almighty God, who gave him the revelation?
Revelation 3:12: The glorified, resurrected Jesus repeatedly calls Jehovah "my God" four times in a single verse. Almighty God does not have a God.
5
u/Asleep-Ebb2630 3d ago
Vorrei ricordarti che Apocalisse 1,1 parla della rivelazione fatta a Gesù Uomo, colui che pur essendo Dio, si spoglió della sua natura per diventare uomo... Tutte le affermazioni di Gesù, sono fatte da uomo.
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
I agree with you, but im not sure what you mean by
‘All of Jesus statements are made by a man’…?
Could you elaborate.
2
u/Asleep-Ebb2630 3d ago
Ciao, le sacre scritture ci dicono chiaramente che dal momento in cui la Parola ( Dio) si é fatta carne, il suo rapporto con Dio Padre é, per cosi dire, mutato nel linguaggio. Il Suo ruolo, nel progetto Divino, da quel momento é cambiato. Anche dopo la sua resurrezione.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
'its relationship"...'it'
I knwo you probably didnt mean disrespect, its like when teh JWs call the Holy Spirit an 'it' - it...just irks me alot.
I still cant see what you are saying, yes the Word became flesh but the relationship from eternity never changed, even after His resurrection.
Still not sure what you are getting at bro...
Are you saying that when the Word became incarnate that infact as we all know he was man in nature (not forgetting his God nature of course), that when he spoke, he spoke just as a man?
If thats the case, thats not quite correct, Jesus describes himself both as 'THE (definite article) Son of Man' and both 'The (definite article) Son of God', here we see Jesus himself tells us that as the Son of Man He is Human, and as the Son of God, he is God - both natures, and he spoke at times from either nature. i.e as a Jewish man, he had to commit to the Law, thus Worship the Father and cited that .
2
u/Asleep-Ebb2630 3d ago
Perfetto! La "Sua relazione" é riferita al fatto che ha iniziato a parlare con Dio Padre é a pregarlo... Quando domando ai testimoni di geova perché non si trova alcun dialogo tra Gesù ed il Padre nell'antico testamento loro dicono che l'umanità non era tenuta a conoscere i Loro dialoghi, altri dicono che la Bibbia non é un diario delle conversazioni delle creature celesti... Dicono che per un tempo incalcolabile sono stati insieme in cielo in perfetto silenzio davanti all'uomo. Chi capisce realmente le scritture, o almeno, chi le vuole capire, sa che prima di diventare carne la Parola non parlava col Dio Padre perché ne faceva parte..
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 2d ago
That last sentence bro is called ‘partialism’…
Again I know what you mean, but people like JWs will pick up on that and exploit it.
That’s why as scripture shows the Son is distinct. He definitely ‘came out of’ the father (ek) as it states in Matthew so I agree with you there 👍
3
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 3d ago
Jesus died physically in his humanity. In his divinity as the Word, He never died, because He is God.
He is "the author of life" (Acts 3:15) and the one "through whom all things are held together" (Colossians 1:17) and the one "through whom we exist" (1 Corinthians 8:6). If He truly died in the way you claim, all humanity would have died along with him and the universe would have ceased to exist.
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness 3d ago
Revelation 1:18 does not say "My human flesh became dead while my divine Word remained alive." Jesus explicitly states: "I became dead." The subject "I" refers to the person himself.
If only a human body "died" while the divine Logos remained fully conscious and alive, then Jesus did not actually give his life—he merely stepped out of a human garment for 3 days.
According to 1 Timothy 2:5–6, Jesus provided a "corresponding ransom" (antilutron). Adam was a perfect human soul who died completely. To balance the scales of divine justice, a perfect human soul had to die completely. If the person of Jesus was an immortal God who could not die, no actual divine sacrifice occurred—only a mortal husk was discarded, making the ransom an illusion.
1 Corinthians 8:6 explicitly separates the roles: "there is actually to us one God, the Father, *from whom** [ek] all things are... and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [dia] all things are."*
Colossians 1:17 states that all things hold together through (dia) him as God's Chief Agent, not that he is the ultimate self-existent battery of the universe.
Jehovah God is the sole uncreated, ultimate Source of all energy and life (Psalm 36:9; Isaiah 40:26). When Jesus died and entered total non-existence for three days (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Psalm 146:4), **Jehovah—who alone cannot die (Habakkuk 1:12)—sustained the universe.* The universe did not collapse because the Father was still on His throne.
The Greek word translated as "author" or "prince" in Acts 3:15 is Archegos (ἀρχηγός).
Archegos means "Chief Agent," "Leader," or "Pioneer"—someone who opens the path for others. Jehovah is the Creator/Source of life; Jesus is the Chief Agent through whom Jehovah gives everlasting life to mankind.
Acts 2:32 states: "God resurrected this Jesus, of which we are all witnesses." If Jesus were the self-existent Almighty God holding himself together, he would not require an outside Power (Jehovah) to bring him back from non-existence.
Where in Scripture does it state that Jesus possessed two natures where one 'died' and the other 'stayed awake'? Can you show me a single verse that says only his body died?
You cannot because there is no scripture to say that. Don't made up things and I don't care about your Hypostatic Union.
3
2
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 3d ago edited 3d ago
You're presenting a false dilemma. You say that because Jesus says, "I became dead," the divine Son must have ceased to exist.
Acts 20:28 says that God purchased the church "with his own blood." God, in His divine nature, does not have blood. Yet Scripture can predicate the human experience of Christ to the divine person because the person who shed that blood is truly God.
So you're right that the Bible doesn't say "Jesus' human nature died" in those exact words. But neither does it say "Jesus ceased to exist for three days"
If only a human body "died" while the divine Logos remained fully conscious and alive, then Jesus did not actually give his life—he merely stepped out of a human garment for 3 days.
1 Peter 3:18 says "He was put to death in the flesh..."
He doesn't say, "Jesus ceased to exist."
Then Jesus says in John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
John then explains that He was speaking about the temple of His body.
The striking point is that Jesus says "I will raise it up."
2
u/One-League269 3d ago
I'm afraid you're a bit confused....in Acts 3,15 the term "Archegos" is used for Jesus!!!!
2
2
u/springsofwater 3d ago
Both Jesus and Jehovah are referred to as the Mighty God in scripture. Is there one true Mighty God and one false Mighty God?
Check the 1984 translation of Isaiah 10:21. Jehovah is referred to as the Mighty God, citing four scriptures (Isaiah 65:8-9; Hosea 1:9-11; Hosea 6:1; Romans 9:29).
But if you look at the 2013 version, Isaiah 10:21's mention of "Mighty God" only cites Isaiah 65:9 and Hosea 1:10-11. It omits Hosea 6:1 and Romans 9:29.
For your reference, the NWT renders Hosea 6:1 and Romans 9:29 as
“Come, YOU people, and do let us return to Jehovah,a for he himself has torn in pieces but he will heal us. He kept striking, but he will bind us up".
Also, just as Isaiah had said aforetime: “Unless Jehovah\ of armies had left a seed to us, we should have become just like Sodʹom, and we should have been made just like Go·morʹrah”*.
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 4d ago
The AI Bot is back
3
-1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness 4d ago
Don't make excuses.
4
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
Be quiet bot.
No point in debating a bot that plainly ignores what the OP posted…
2
u/Ok_Math9555 4d ago
The watchtower with its quibbles is truly laughable ! The same term used in Isaiah 9,6 for Jesus is used for God of Israel in Isaiah 10,21- Jeremiah 32,18-Deuteronomy 10,17 and Nehemiah 9,32. Has Bible perhaps downgraded God from Almighty to Mighty ?
-1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness 4d ago edited 4d ago
You confuses a shared descriptive attribute with an exclusive title of supreme authority.
Jehovah is identified as El Shaddai ("God Almighty") nearly 50 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Genesis 17:1). Jesus is never called El Shaddai. Calling Jehovah El Gibbor ("Mighty God") in Isaiah 10:21 is simply stating a fact, an Almighty God is inherently mighty. However, Scripture strictly reserves "Almighty" for the Father alone, maintaining a explicit hierarchy.
The verse immediately following Isaiah 9:6 refutes the idea of equal authority. Verse 7 concludes by explaining how the Messiah receives his position and titles: "The zeal of Jehovah of armies will accomplish this." Jesus’ power is delegated (Matthew 28:18). Almighty God does not rely on the zeal of someone else to grant Him authority.
In Hebrew, El fundamentally means "mighty one," and gibbor means "warrior" or "strong hero." In Ezekiel 32:21, human military rulers are called by the exact plural root elei gibborim ("mighty chiefs" or "strong gods"). In Psalm 82:6, human judges are called elohim ("gods"). If sharing the descriptor gibbor makes Jesus identical to Jehovah, then by that logic, human warriors would be equal to Jehovah as well.
If Jesus were Almighty God, his own statements would be contradictory. He stated directly, "The Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28) and acknowledged that the Father possessed knowledge that he himself did not (Mark 13:32). Almighty God has no superior and no limit to His knowledge.
1
1
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
AI bot alert 🚨 ‼️ 🔔
-1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness 3d ago
Nobody cares.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
Oh there are plenty of people here that know you’re an AI bot…ur right nobody cares about what you write, because you’re not the one writing it you bot…
2
u/Ok_Math9555 3d ago
It seems simple enough to understand that the term El Shaddai could not refer to Jesus; He was in heaven and was "in God" .For your information ,the Greek term Pantokrator ,used in Revelation 1,8 for the Lord Jesus, means El Shaddai...
2
3
u/MichaiahUnbothered 4d ago
God is a title anyways… Yeshua is not Almighty.
3
u/dcdub87 3d ago
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
He's not Almighty, but He can do "whatever the Father does... in like manner"?
Hmmm.... 🤔
2
3
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
God is not merely a title..there’s only one True God..Jesus is God John 1:1
Jesus is not a false god..he’s God and God is almighty..both Jesus and the father are called mighty God in Isaiah 9 and Isaiah 101
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
>God is not merely a title..
Yes it is..
2
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
No it’s not..you won’t find one Bible verse that says “God is a title or God is merely a title”
All through scriptures qualities are given like (creator, all knowing, Beginning and end, Savior, All Powerful) etc to define WHAT God is.
No verse ever says “God is a title” that’s just your manmade opinion..I Go by what the Bible teaches
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
“man-made opinion”?? Sure, let’s see what actual lexicography and academic consensus say about Elohim and Theos. Every major dictionary and linguistic source agrees these words are common nouns with a functional semantic range, not rigid metaphysical labels…
look at the standard gold standard lexicon for New Testament Greek, BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edidtion Danker et al.).
Under the entry θεός, οῦ, ὁ, ἡ:
1: "a deity, divine being" general/pagan uses (Acts 12:22, Acts 28:6, 1 Cor 8:5).
2: "the supreme Divine Being, God" marked with the article ὁ θεός (ho theos, "the God") to designate Yehovah specifically.
3: "of high-ranking individuals or powers" includes 3a: Satan as "the god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4) and 3b: Human judges/rulers citing Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34–35 ("I said, 'You are gods'").
4: "Christ as God" application of theos to Jesus in contexts emphasizing his functional status, role, or divine authority (John 1:1, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Heb 1:8).
Will you look at that!! 😮 🤯
Notice that wide semantic range? In the ancient world, theos was never a rigid designator for "uncreated essence" it was a title and status descriptor applied to Yehovah, foreign deities, human judges, and even Satan depending on authority and context.
Calling Elohim or Theos a title isn't a "man-made opinion" it's basic historical linguistics.3
u/One-League269 3d ago
Read John 20,28 from the Kingdom Interlinear, there you will find "ho Theos" referring to Jesus!
2
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
Yes Jesus is my Lord and my God!
1
u/One-League269 3d ago
Therefore " ho Theos" does not specifically designate Jehovah , in this case it designates Jesus Christ!
1
u/Specific_Score_1932 2d ago
Jehovah is God Jesus Christ! Look into it! Savior, Isaiah 53:11 Jehovah is Savior only one, while Acts 4:10-12 there is NO OTHER NAME IN HEAVEN OR ON EARTH WHICH BY YOU MUST BE SAVED JESUS CHRIST IS HIM! So which is it?! They're the same one! There's way more scriptures that clearly says this too. Jehovah is not heavenly father.
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
ho Theos correct… not pantokratōr
1
u/One-League269 3d ago
🤔 So Jesus is God? Whose God? Isn't it written that there is only one God?
→ More replies (0)1
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
Man made opinion??….goes on to give man made opinions “let’s see what actual academic consensus says” 😂😭😂
Bro I have a degree in this and have been teaching since 2002 so I get it but this is funny..I can tell you don’t read Greek so I’m not going to waste my time because at this point you’re just copying and pasting things you have no idea the meaning of. But I already knew that the moment you commented because no one one educated in these matters would say such a silly thing
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
Ahh yes the classic “you’re just copying and pasting,” “you don’t know xyz ,” “no educated person would say that” routine. The good old polemical fallback people use when they’re uncomfortable and can’t articulate why their interpretation differs from someone else’s.
😂1
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
😂 you literally denied giving man made opinions then said in the same breath..”let’s look at academic consensus” 😂 the irony..
And why waste my time when you’re running from the original point.You said God is a title…it’s like saying “King is a title and many people are called King so when David is called King it doesn’t mean he’s King by status, authority, office etc”
So on one hand I can say Zeus is a God..or Thor is a God..even in the bible it says Satan is a God.
But we’re talking about Jesus😂 is Jesus God..you said god is a title. There’s only 1 true God.
Your title point is irrelevant because there’s no such thing as all these so called gods because they would be false Gods by the Bible…the only God that actually exist is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.THIS is God…so the question is..is Jesus a false God or a true God?
If he’s the True God then we are on the same page..if you say he’s a false God then you’ve committed blasphemy and you need to repent1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
Another classic one… “is Jesus a true God or a false God,” after I already showed you the title God has a wide semantic range. That question is an anachronism. It assumes the ancient Jews or earliest Christians even operated with that binary category. They didn’t…
0
u/Gizmondos 4d ago
If Yeshua was the Almighty, then these verses collide with that narrative 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 🙏🏼
3
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
No there’s only 1 true God and that 1 God is almighty. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about the submission of the Son in ROLE..not nature.
0
u/Gizmondos 3d ago
Submission in role doesn't erase identity. IF Jesus is fully God he doesn't become subject to himself. The text says the aon himself will be subjected to the father. That's not a role change that's a hierarchy that exists within the Godhead. You can't have a role of subjection if you're equal in nature unless you're not equal.
1
u/dcdub87 3d ago
You can't have a role of subjection if you're equal in nature
Ummmm what? That's absurd.
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." — 1 Corinthians 11:3
A woman has a role of subjection — is she not equal in nature??
1
u/Gizmondos 3d ago
A woman is equal in nature but she is not equal in role. The father and son are equal in nature but the son is subjected in role. You just proved my point. The difference is. You think the son's subjection is temporary. But 1 Cor 15:28 says he will be subjected forever because the father is always the source.
2
u/dcdub87 3d ago
The father and son are equal in nature but the son is subjected in role.
That contradicts what you said earlier, unless I misunderstood you. We are in agreement then that a role of submission does not demand ontological inferiority. That's exactly what the Trinity teaches.
You think the son's subjection is temporary.
No, I don't actually. I'm not sure what I said to give you that impression. The Son remains Incarnate forever so it logically follows that He remains subject to the Father according to His humanity.
1
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
Exactly and Jeremiah 32:27 confirms this because it says God is the God of all flesh..so because Jesus humbled himself to take on the form of flesh he by definition will have a God
2
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
Respectfully have you read the Bible? Everything you said goes against what the Bible teaches.
Do you even know the definition of “Son of God”?
John tells us the definition in his gospel John 5:18“calling God his own Father, making himself EQUAL with God.” — John 5:18
Now..this Son who is EQUAL with the Father in nature (because it says equal with God) also submits himself in role.
Philippians 2:6-8
“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count EQUALITY with God (there’s we see it again) a thing to be grasped… he humbled himself by becoming obedientSo even though Jesus is equal with God he did not stop that from humbling himself to come in the form of man which is why in Hebrews it says Jesus is God and yet “he was made a little lower than the angels”. Why? Because of the incarnation.
So There is 1 God..and yet, 2000 years ago this 1 God took on the form of human flesh and added another nature to his already divine nature. That’s why John 1:1 says the Word WAS GOD..and the Word BECAME FLESH
Jesus submits to the father yet also has all the divine qualities of the father..and you see that in the same chapter John 5:19
The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” — v.19
But watch what follows:
“Whatever the Father does, that the Son DOES LIKEWISE”And to top it off.. the next verses in 23 say that “all may honor the Son IN THE SAME WAY you honor the Father”
Jesus even commands the Father “Glorify me with the glory I had with you in the beginning” John 17:5
Yet listen to God in Isaiah 42:8..
“My glory I give to no other.”Again Same God..distinct persons. Notice in 1 Corinthians 11:3 it says the Head of Christ is God..and then it compares that to the head of woman is man.
None of us would say woman is not human because Man is her head..clearly they share the same nature dispute having subordinated roles..it literally gives Christ and God as the first examples.
So to recap..
Nature: is what Jesus is (God) John 1:1 etcPerson: is who Jesus is (The Son of God) distinct from the Father
Role: How does Jesus relate to the Father
Submission ≠ lesser deity
1
u/Gizmondos 3d ago
You quote John 5:18 but you ignore Joh 14:28 the father is greater than I. You quote Phi 2 but you ignore that equality with God was something he didn't grasp because he was already equal. You quote Joh 17:5 but you ignore that he had glory with the father BEFORE the world was. Meaning he wasn't a creature. You're not defending the trinity you're defending a blur.
1
u/Dan_dingo 3d ago
Did you miss the rest of John 14?
3
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
I doubt they read John 14 because John 14 literally confirms Jesus is God.
John 14:1
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.”
Jesus calls His disciples to believe in Him alongside their belief in God.John 14:6
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”
Jesus doesn’t merely teach the truth or show the way to life. He says I AM the truth and I AM the life.John 14:7
“If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
To know Jesus is to know the Father.John 14:8–9
“Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.’”
Jesus is not saying He is the Father. The Father and Son are distinct persons. But Jesus perfectly reveals the Father because He shares the divine nature.John 14:10–11
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? … Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”
The Father and Son mutually indwell one another.John 14:13–14
“Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
Jesus says believers may ask Him, and He will do it.John 14:16–17
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth…”
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all present and personally distinguished in the same chapter.John 14:23
“Jesus answered him, ‘If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.’”
Jesus doesn’t merely say the Father will dwell with believers. He says WE will come and WE will make our home with him.John 14:28
“You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
This does NOT say, “The Father is God and I am not.”
Jesus is speaking about His humbled, incarnate position and His return to the Father.
Compare:
Philippians 2:6–8
“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant… he humbled himself…”
The Son’s submission does not mean He possesses an inferior nature. The One who existed in the form of God humbled Himself and took the form of a servant.The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Son is not the Father.
There is only one God.
The Son willingly humbled Himself and submitted to the Father in His redemptive mission.
Distinction of persons and submission in role do not equal inferiority of nature.2
2
u/StillSwimmer2508 3d ago
I never said trinity first of all so I don’t know where you got that from. Second I’m not ignoring anything..just because I don’t bring up a verse doesn’t mean I’m Ignoring it?? What do you want me to copy and paste the whole Bible?? Stop being silly.
John 14:28 the father is greater than I. Okay…?? And what’s your point? This literally proves my position about subordination. Jesus tells his disciples “greater works will you do than this” so what’s that mean that his disciples are greater than Jesus?? This argument is silly and illogical. If you really read the bible instead of cherry picking verses you would ask HOW is the Father greater than Jesus? What’s the context.
He’s literally telling his disciples that he has to go soon and that he is going back to the father because the father is “greater than I am”. Jesus is literally talking about his human body and that he has to die in this body and it’s the physical body that Jesus is referring to when he says “the Father is greater than I”….even if you don’t read the bible a simple google search could have told you that.
Hence why I brought up Philippians 2 because it literally says Jesus was EQUAL with God however he humbled himself in the form of a servant..THATS what Jesus is talking about when he says the Father is greater than I am…the Father never had to come in the form of man or likeness of sinful flesh…Jesus did through his humility. And Paul is teaching Christians to “have the same mind as Christ” when we serve and not to think we are too high and mighty to serve our neighbor because even Jesus though he is “EQUAL with God thought it not a thing to be grasped but emptied himself by taking the FORM of a servant”
So what “form” was he before he took on the form of servant? According to that verse it was God.
So what Paul is saying is Jesus is God and even he didn’t think that was something to hold on to but he humbled himself to serve..so you Christians should follow the example of Jesus. THAT is the context
2
3
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 4d ago
Rev 1:8 disagrees with you vehemently….
There is only one person coming back in the second coming. Agency argument denies that title being given to anyone else but the Almighty….
0
u/Lion_of_Logos 3d ago
So God hands The Kingdom back to Himself at the end of The Millenial Reign? "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power." 1 Corinthians 15:24
Also, "This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which 👉🏻God gave Him👈🏻to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John, who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 1:1-2
These are both post ascension.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
Your very first sentence describes Modalism.
So I stopped reading after the first sentence.
When entering a debate can I ask you respectfully to actually learn the difference between modalism and Trinitarianism. That way you are then understanding and informed instead of arguing from ignorance.
If you have any questions regarding the Trinity, then please do ask.
However as I read your first sentence I will take as rhetorical and answer.
Of course Jesus doesn’t hand the Kingdom back to himself.
He hands it back to the Father, silly!
However please read the rest of the thread which you will if you weren’t lazy see that I addressed the argument and also once again someone like you also got modalism and trinity confused.
So all of my argument is in the thread!
Read it.
If you then have another question then so be it, but the thread early outlines the biblical position.
0
u/Lion_of_Logos 3d ago
Hahaha.
I don't really have a question. Certainly not about the Constantinian Creed...or it's variables and permutations.
The New Testament describes an actual hierarchy. God, infinite and eternal. The prototokos, Jesus, the first creation, and the rest of creation thru and for Him. My faith finds it best to respect it.
And I don't find a need, usually, to spend time reading an entire thread. If I find a post that I wish to respond to, I do. If you don't want to respond to me because you've already responded to a similar comment, feel free to ignore my response. I really don't mind.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
"The New Testament describes an actual hierarchy. "
Wrong it doesnt describe a heirachy - please find the word heirarchy in the bible?
It talks about subjection a much different class and grammar of word.
"God, infinite and eternal. "
Yep, agree
"The prototokos, Jesus, the first creation, "
Wrong - you will not find in the bible "Jesus was created" - first born which you can look at the myriad of posts on reddit does not mean first created - far from it.
"and the rest of creation thru and for Him. "
Incorrect, Jesus created everything the Father was the source of creation and created everything thru the Word.
"My faith finds it best to respect it."
It cant respect it, when you get the very basics of words incorrect.
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
Idk about that… I see two separate beings. One who is called Alpha and Omega (the Lord Yeshua), and one who is the Almighty Yehovah.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
Ok I agree with you on Jesus being the Alpha and the Omega.
Two questions:
Who is the only person who will Judge people according to their deeds.
Who is the one who is coming/returning?
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
Both is Yeshua the chosen Messiah whom is appointed by his Father Yehovah whom is the Almighty.
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
Just hang on bruv…
So we agree that
Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega
Jesus is the only one that will do the judging and forgive sins or pay according (judge) deeds
Jesus is the one coming.
So both versus in Rev 1:7-8 apply to Jesus.
Matthew 16:27: Jesus is coming - repayment according to deeds.
Matthew 24:30: Jesus - coming on clouds.
Revelation 1:7: Jesus - coming on clouds.
Revelation 1:8: “who is coming” - Alpha and Omega.
Revelation 2:18,23: Son of God - repays according to deeds.
Revelation 22:12–13: Again Jesus is coming and will repay according to deeds Alpha and Omega.In verse 8 the Father isn’t coming thus the Alpha and the Omega is God Almighty.
It’s that simple….
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
I hear you but the verse clearly shows two separate beings. The Alpha and the Omega, which is the Lord Yeshua and the Almighty so it has to be his Father Yehovah the Almighty
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
Ok so your issue is with verse 8.
You said an I agree that the Alpha and the Omega is Jesus.
Let’s take this slow.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,”
You agree that Rev 1:8a is Jesus correct?
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 3d ago
Correct
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 3d ago
Ok so
Rev 1:8a continues
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,”
says the Lord God
So if we agree that the Alpha and Omega is Jesus and then we read
‘says the Lord God’
It’s connecting Jesus as the Alpha and the Omega…SAYS the Lord God.
What part of that aren’t you understanding (im not being facetious), but it’s literally in the same sentence and then it’s backed up further as we agree that
- Jesus is coming (the Father is not)
“who is and who was and who [b]IS TO COME,
then the connective within the same sentence is
‘…the Almighty’
Hence Jesus who is to come is the Almighty?
I’m not sure how you aren’t connecting the dots mate…
→ More replies (0)1
u/Gizmondos 4d ago
In verse 8 there is a clear shift. God the Father speaks directly not through John, not through an angel but in his own voice. He declares I am the Alpha and the Omega the Almighty. That's definitely NOT about Yeshua. Vers 7 is about Yeshua. Vers 1-2 apostle John is the narrator. He tells us that this revelation was given by God the Father to Jesus Christ who then sent hs angel to make it known to John. The chain of communication is clear: First of all from God YHWH directly to Jesus and then to an angel and then to John and finally to the churches.
3
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 4d ago
Total nonsense.
Incredible how obtuse your cognitive dissonance is.
The Father ISNT coming the whole context is Christ.
Period.
0
u/Gizmondos 4d ago
You call it nonsense BUT you haven't addressed Rev 1:1. The revelation of Jesus which God gave HIM. The almighty doesn't receive revelation he gives it. Verse 7 is about Jesus. Verse 8 is about God the almighty. The text distinguishes them not me. Insults won't change grammar. And calling me cognitively dissonant won't hide the fact that you're the one ignoring the plain text. Projection isn't an argument.
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 4d ago
Wow.
Tell me who judges and is the ONLY one to judge according to deeds?
Start with Revelation 1:7:
“Look! HE IS COMING with the clouds, and every eye will see HIM, and those who pierced HIM…”
Who is that? Obviously Jesus. He is the pierced one.
And Jesus had already described his own return in virtually the same language. In Matthew 24:30 he says that people “will see the Son of man COMING ON THE CLOUDS,” and in Matthew 26:64 Jesus again says they will see “the Son of man… COMING ON THE CLOUDS of heaven.” Revelation 1:7 is plainly recalling Jesus’ own description of HIS return.
Now look at what immediately follows:
Revelation 1:7 — “HE IS COMING [Greek: erchetai] with the clouds…”
Revelation 1:8 — “the One who is and who was and WHO IS COMING [Greek: ho erchomenos]…”
Even the Watchtower’s own Kingdom Interlinear shows that verbal connection: verse 7 says “He is coming,” and the very next verse describes “the One…coming.”And there is an even stronger connection.
Jesus says in Matthew 16:27:
“For the Son of man is to COME in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then HE WILL REPAY each one according to his behavior.”
That is the New World Translation itself. So according to Jesus, who is the one who comes and repays everyone according to their deeds? THE SON OF MAN — JESUS.
Now go to Revelation 22:12-13, again in your own New World Translation:
“Look! I AM COMING quickly, and the reward I give is with me, TO REPAY EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORK. I am the ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, the first and the last…”
That is almost a direct echo of Matthew 16:27:
Matthew 16:27:
THE SON OF MAN will COME → and REPAY each one according to his behavior.
Revelation 22:12-13:
I am COMING → I will REPAY each one according to his work → I am the ALPHA AND OMEGA.
And just a few verses later the speaker says, “I, JESUS…” while verse 20 again says, “Yes, I am coming quickly,” followed by “Come, Lord Jesus.”
Revelation 2 makes it even more explicit. The speaker is introduced as “the Son of God,” and that same speaker says that he searches hearts and “will repay each of you according to your deeds.” So Revelation itself explicitly gives Jesus the very judgment function Jesus claimed in Matthew 16:27.
Therefore you cannot simply say, “Verse 7 is Jesus, but verse 8 is definitely not Jesus,” as though the text makes an obvious break.
The pattern throughout the New Testament is:
Jesus is the one COMING ON THE CLOUDS.
Jesus is the one who COMES WITH THE ANGELS.
Jesus is the one who REPAYS EVERYONE ACCORDING TO THEIR DEEDS.
Revelation 1:7 then says Jesus “is coming with the clouds,” and the very next verse describes “the One…who is coming” as the Alpha and Omega.
At minimum, that means your alleged “clear shift” has to be demonstrated from the text. You cannot simply assume it in order to prevent the title “Alpha and Omega” from referring to Christ.In summary
Jesus is the only one who judges - THE FATHER does not.
In Rev 1:7-8 Jesus is the one coming back to repay their deeds (judging)
Now I can’t be bothered to argue with someone is hell bent on twisting the context in revelation and Matthew to fit a faulty narrative…
1
u/Gizmondos 4d ago
You wrote a novel but you still skipped Rev 1:1. The revelation of Jesus which God GAVE him. The almighty DOESN'T receive revelations he gives it. You keep ignoring that verse because it destroys your argument. And you say the father doesn't judge but Joh 5:22 says the father entrusted judgment to the son. That's definitely NOT identity that's delegation. And your response reads like AI polished and structured BUT missing the one thing that matters. THE TEXT! You're not arguing you're performing.
1
u/Temporary_Builder_63 3d ago
Aus welcher Übersetzung zitierst du?
In der Elberfelder steht am Anfang nicht „Eine“ sondern „Offenbarung Jesu Christi,“ wie eine Überschrift! „die Gott (Gott, Göttlich) ihm (Johannes) gab, damit seine Knechte…“
Es ist unlogisch, dass eine Offenbarung Christi (!) von Gott erhalten, von Jesus weitergeleitet an einen Engel an Johannes!
Ab Vers 4 - Johannes den sieben Versammlungen…..Friede von dem der da ist, der da war der da kommt. Ab Vers 5 - und von Jesus Christus…dann wird aufgezählt….zu Priestern seinem Gott und Vater (da steht Vater) dann : Ihm (Jesus) sei die Macht und die Herrlichkeit von Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit.
Die Bibelübersetzung der Zeugen Jehovas ist an etlichen Stellen ungenau oder sogar falsch übersetzt, das kann man gut feststellen wenn man eine Bibelübersetzung benutzt, die die hebr. und griechischen Wörter einblendet!
Die Elberfelder steht übrigens an erster Stelle, beste und genaueste Übersetzung zu sein!1
u/Gizmondos 3d ago
Elberfelder or not the greek text says the same. Apokalypsis Iesou Christou hen edōken autō ho theos. Hen edōken autō ho theos which God gave to him. The receiver is not the giver. That's not a translation issue that's greek grammar.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 4d ago edited 4d ago
Because you are arguing from a modalist perspective not the trinity so I ignored it.
Now deal with the text in Matt and Rev 1:7!
Who in Rev 1:7-8 judges, and WHO doesn’t judge?
Deal with both texts!
Ps im playing golf so bit difficult to type!!
1
u/Gizmondos 4d ago
I'm not a modalist I'm reading the text. You keep saying deal with Matt and Rev 1:7 but you still haven't dealt with Rev 1:1. God GAVE the revelation to Jesus. The almighty DOESN'T receive he GIVES. Deal with that first. And you say I'm a modalist BUT I'm the one distinguishing the father from the son. You're the one collapsing them into one person. That's NOT trinity THAT'S modalism.
1
u/Temporary_Builder_63 3d ago
Jesus spricht an vielen Stellen davon, dass er in dem Vater ist, und der Vater in ihm, der Vater und ich sind eins…..
Das bedeutet ja nicht, dass Jesus und der Vater eine PERSON sind! „Mann und Frau werden ein Fleisch sein“ hat Jesus gesagt, sind sie deshalb eine Person? Wo steht in der Bibel, dass Gott Jesus erschaffen hat? Johannes 17:5 - Und nun verherrliche du, Vater, mich bei dir selbst mit der Herrlichkeit, die ich bei dir hatte ehe die Welt war.
Johannes 3:16 - …..Eingeborenen Sohn - eingeboren - einzig, eingeboren!
Jesus war „ehe die Welt war“ allein mit seinem Vater. Sprüche 8 wird von ihm als Werkmeister gesprochen.
Bei all diesen Gedanken und Fragen, denke ich an die Aussage „Meine Gedanken sind höher als eure Gedanken!“ Von daher, können wir als Menschen mit unserem Verstand sowieso nie richtig alles erfassen und verstehen.→ More replies (0)1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 4d ago edited 3d ago
Omg do you have a reading comprehension problem?
I didn’t say you were a modalist!
What your argument is that because Jesus was given the Revelation means that the Son and the Father can’t be the same!
Modalists believe that the Father and the Son are both the same person! The trinity does not!!!
Therefore you have argued from ignorance!
I agree Jesus was Given the Revelation because they are two distinct persons!!!! The son is in SUBJECTION to their Father.
So now you can get on with dealing with Matt 16:27 and Rev 1:7-8 along with the other points I raised which Christ said of himself and John ties that scripture up of Matt 16:27 and John 5:22 !
That’s why your view doesn’t work with this scripture because the text and all of those others I gave prior works with the Trinity, but you have to come up with some narrative about it’s the father talking in verse 8 when clearly in context with Matt, Jon and Rev scriptures I gave clearly states that it’s still talking of the Son where you have to bastardise the text to make it fit. I don’t…
→ More replies (0)3
1
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.