Could this be a Mistake?

[Conscience]

You're welcome Faithful Servant!

Mee, did you read 1st Peter 1:18-20?

[mee]

Originally Posted by Conscience

You're welcome Faithful Servant!

Mee, did you read 1st Peter 1:18-20?

the Greek term (ka·ta·bo·le´) for "founding" can refer to the conceiving of seed in human conception. Ka·ta·bo·le´ literally means "a throwing down [of seed]

Therefore "the founding of the world" need not be taken to mean the beginning of the creation of the material universe, nor does the expression "before the founding of the world" (Joh 17:5, 24; Eph 1:4; 1Pe 1:20) refer to a point of time prior to the creation of the material universe. Rather, these expressions evidently relate to the time when the human race was ‘founded’ through the first human pair, Adam and Eve, who, outside of Eden, began to conceive seed that could benefit from God’s provisions for deliverance from inherited sin.—Ge 3:20-24; 4:1, 2the reason jesus was known before ,was because he was in heaven with his father Jehovah.remember jesus had a pre-exsitence before coming to the earth.

(John 17:5) So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

(Ephesians 1:4) just as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love.

[Faithfulservant]

katabolhv

1. a throwing or laying down
2. the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
3. of the seed of plants and animals
4. a founding (laying down a foundation)

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Who was foreknown indeed (proegnwsmenou men). Perfect passive participle (in genitive singular agreeing with Cristou) of proginwskw, old verb, to know beforehand (Romans 8:29; 2 Peter 3:17). See prognwsin qeou in verse 1 Peter 1:2. Before the foundation of the world (pro katabolhß kosmou). This precise curious phrase occurs in John 17:24 in the Saviour's mouth of his preincarnate state with the Father as here and in Ephesians 1:4. We have apo katabolhß kosmou in Matthew 25:34 (kosmou omitted in Matthew 13:35); Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8. Katabolh (from kataballw) was originally laying the foundation of a house (Hebrews 6:1). The preincarnate Messiah appears in the counsels of God also in 1 Corinthians 2:7; Colossians 1:26; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:9-11; Romans 16:25; 1 Timothy 1:9. But was manifested (panerwqentoß de). First aorist (ingressive) passive participle of panerow, referring to the Incarnation in contrast with the preexistence of Christ (cf. John 1:31; 1 John 3:5,8). At the end of the times (ep escatou twn cronwn). Like ep escatou twn hmerwn (Hebrews 1:2). The plural cronoi, doubtless referring to successive periods in human history until the fullness of the time came (Galatians 4:4). For your sake (di umaß). Proof of God's love, not of their desert or worth (Acts 17:30; Hebrews 11:39).

[Dor]

The word rendered "foundation" - καταβολή katabolē - means
properly a laying down, a founding, a foundation - as where the foundation of a building is laid - and the phrase "before the foundation of the world" clearly means before the world was made, or before the work of creation; see Mat_13:35; Mat_25:34; Luk_11:50; Heb_9:26; Rev_13:8, in all which places the phrase "the foundation of the world" means the beginning of human affairs; the beginning of the world; the beginning of history, etc. Thus, in Joh_17:24, the Lord Jesus says, "thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world," i. e., from eternity, or before the work of creation commenced. Thus, Peter says 1Pe_1:20 of the Saviour, "who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world." It was the purpose of God before the worlds were made, to send him to save lost men; compare Rev_17:8. Nothing can be clearer than that the phrase before us must refer to a purpose that was formed before the world was made. it is not a temporary arrangement; it has not grown up under the influence of vacillating purposes; it is not a plan newly formed, or changed with each coming generation, or variable like the plans of people.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by mee

Does

the fact that worship is given to Jesus prove that he is God?

At Hebrews 1:6, the angels are instructed to "worship" Jesus, according to the rendering of RS, TEV, KJ, JB, and NAB. NW says "do obeisance to." At Matthew 14:33, Jesus’ disciples are said to have "worshiped" him, according to RS, TEV, KJ; other translations say that they "showed him reverence" (NAB), "bowed down before him" (JB), "fell at his feet" (NE), "did obeisance to him" (NW).

The Greek word rendered "worship" is pro·sky·ne´o, which A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature says was also "used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground." (Chicago, 1979, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker; second English edition; p. 716) This is the term used at Matthew 14:33 to express what the disciples did toward Jesus; at Hebrews 1:6 to indicate what the angels are to do toward Jesus; at Genesis 22:5 in the Greek Septuagint to describe what Abraham did toward Jehovah and at Genesis 23:7 to describe what Abraham did, in harmony with the custom of the time, toward people with whom he was doing business; at 1 Kings 1:23 in the Septuagint to describe the prophet Nathan’s action on approaching King David.

At Matthew 4:10 (RS), Jesus said: "You shall worship [from pro·sky·ne´o] the Lord your God and him only shall you serve." (At Deuteronomy 6:13, which Jesus is evidently here quoting, appears the personal name of God, the Tetragrammaton.) In harmony with that, we must understand that it is pro·sky·ne´o with a particular attitude of heart and mind that should be directed only toward God.

The Greek word for worship, "PROSKUNEO", is translated as "worship" for Jehovah 22 times in the New World Translation.

The SAME WORD applied to Jesus is translated "obeisance", "reverence", and "homage

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by mee

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’"

Jewish Rabbi's share a common desire to dispel any connection with the "I Am" of Jehovah in Ex 3 and the "I Am" of Jesus in John 8:58. The fact remains that when the Watchtower searched long and hard enough, they finally found a Rabbi that would say what they wanted. We could quote a pile of Rabbi's who are honest enough to admit that Ex 3 should be rendered "I am who I am"... "I am"



For Arians (JW's, Christadelphians) to appeal to Jewish Rabbis to support their doctrine is nothing short of incredible! Doing such is as dishonest as it is deceptive! JW's have not comprehended that if they had the Governing Body themselves sit down and explain their view of God (Father-true God, Son-a god and Holy Spirit-the force or energy of God) Jewish Rabbis would reach for the "wooden stake" and immediately label JW's as TRINITARIANS or TWINITARIANS! Stated differently, from the perspective of Jewish Rabbis there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE between the Trinitarian view of God and the Arian (JW's) view of God. Jewish Rabbis, when they hear JW's call Jesus God and divine, would label them as POLYTHEISTS! The Governing Body really blundered when they chose this route!
The fact remains that the title theos, is clearly applied to Christ proving that Jehovah's Witnesses make a deceptive argument as Lohse states: "Speaking first of the person of Jesus Christ ... In other passages of the New Testament the predicate "God" is without a doubt applied to Christ.' With these affirmations, which for Jewish monotheism were utterly offensive." (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p37-39)

Originally Posted by mee

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to "have seen Abraham" although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he "was alive before Abraham was born!"—The Simple English Bible

Please... why would they want to stone Jesus for claiming to have seen Abraham.. Do you honestly think the Jewish people would dare risk the wrath of God by killing a man for saying he saw Abraham??? They wanted to stone Him because He was claiming He was God.. the great I AM... That was blasphemy to them.. that was worth stoning someone for.. Incidentally its the same reason they demanded Pilate crucify him.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by mee

Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: "Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11)."—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.

Actually this is misleading... This is the actual entry for John 2:19

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Destroy this temple (lusate ton naon touton). First aorist active imperative of luw, to loosen or destroy. It is the permissive imperative, not a command to do it. Note also naoß, not ieron, the sanctuary, symbol of God's naoß, in our hearts (1 Corinthians 3:16). There is much confusion about this language since Jesus added: "And in three days I will raise it up" (kai en trisin hmeraiß egerw auton). Those who heard Jesus, including the disciples till after the resurrection (verse 1 Corinthians 22), understood the reference to be to Herod's temple. Certainly that is the obvious way to take it. But Jesus often spoke in parables and even in enigmas. He may have spoken of the literal temple as a parable for his own body which of course they would not understand, least of all the resurrection in three days.