Jehovah's Witnesses grow by 'devious' methods, charge anti-missionaries

Alex P said:
But we are looking at this from the view point jesus and YHWH are two different beings.
Click to expand...
Im just giving you the christian side on this matter, YHWH is the name for both the Father and the Son, just as they are both called Lord and Saviour. They are both YHWH.
 
Im just giving you the christian side on this matter, YHWH is the name for both the Father and the Son, just as they are both called Lord and Saviour. They are both YHWH.
Click to expand...

However, the Jehovah's Witness sect believes that Jesus and Jehovah (God) are two separate beings. Therefore JWs believe that Jehovah and Jesus both shared in the creation of the heavens and the earth, which means God has a partner who shares in His glory (according to JW belief).
 
Abdillah said:
However, the Jehovah's Witness sect believes that Jesus and Jehovah (God) are two separate beings. Therefore JWs believe that Jehovah and Jesus both shared in the creation of the heavens and the earth, which means God has a partner who shares in His glory (according to JW belief).
Click to expand...
Yes, this is correct for the Jehovah's Witnesses (a "sect" of Christianity).
 
BlaznFattyz said:
Im just giving you the christian side on this matter, YHWH is the name for both the Father and the Son, just as they are both called Lord and Saviour. They are both YHWH.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't exactly say that......

Let's not forget that the Bible is a piece of literature. Literature contains words that carry meaning. Different words are used for different purposes and for different reasons. YHWH, Father, Son, Lord and Saviour are words and labels that identify different concepts, concepts that are not equal or the same. YHWH and Father do not refer to the same concept even if that are addressing the same entity.

YHWH identifies the concept of a God whose name is not to be pronounced. Father identifies a personal God that to us is like a Father-figure.

Lord identifies a person of leadership and authority of a feudal/tribal nature, a person whom one serves and to whom one owes loyalty. The Lord Jesus is the "lord" of the tribe of Jesus Christ.

Saviour is a person who rescues.

Son is a person who is taught by a Father how to think and behave. Jesus is referred to as the Son "who does only what he sees his own Father doing."

The issue of Jesus "being God" is somewhat blurred, an issue I don't think is even "black and white." To me it seems more likely that the references to the relationship between Jesus and God were suggesting that "Jesus was a projection of God" rather than "Jesus is literally God." If Jesus was literally God, they would be no point in saying, "the Son does only what he sees his own Father doing," or that "he is the visible likeness of an invisible God."

Visible likeness does not imply that they are one and the same. It implies that he is an "image" of something invisible.

A lot of the things you find in the New Testament isn't literal. The New Testament is full of descriptive language and metaphors. It hardly defines anything so you could probably see a lot of things loosely.

Religion is spiritual. It isn't about material things. It's about the soul of things. For me personally, Jesus' purpose here was more important than whether or not he was literally God. The technicality of Jesus being or not being God is an irrelevant one.

It is not our business when someone is wrong about a technicality with regards to religious concepts. That is part of that person's relationship with God. That person with the "wrong" belief believes that he is right. The wrongness is a matter between him and God and is not something for us to judge. That is someone else's life. Life is a journey. We make mistakes. We make wrong turns. Yet, sometimes these mistakes were meant to happen. The mistakes happened for the right reasons.

Jesus' purpose is more important than his nature and if we fight over Jesus' nature we may lose sight of his purpose. God probably doesn't care so much about his nature than his purpose. A person may be technically correct about his nature, but God is probably more concerned about that person's journey through life. He was right about something trivial, but wrong about something important.

The fact that there are so many different theories out there may be a sign that our obsession with the technicalities is itself the one biggest mistake of all and that we all missing the mark. As I said, the Bible is a piece of literature. It is meaning expressed through words and language and you know how ambiguous writing and language can be. The literature of the Bible hardly ever has one meaning. The writing has a likely meaning, as well as many less likely meanings.

The fact that the New Testament describes a lot but defines very little may be an indication to us that we should be treating its words as descriptions and less as definitions. When we argue about whether Jesus is literally God, or just a projection, or servant/messenger, we are being technical and arguing about definitions.

I find descriptions more useful than definitions because descriptions are exploratory. They are like lights that reveal the path of a journey you are taking. In our personal life journey many things are not already clear and it is by walking the journey that we make discoveries. The New Testament doesn't tell us the "exact location" of the gates of heaven. It gives us clues on how to find them.

To hear someone say that "Jesus is literally God" isn't very useful information. What's the point of that statement? This argument has gone on for centuries but I think people are just going round and round in circles and getting nowhere. Whatever helps us forward in the journey is useful. If it doesn't help, it isn't useful.

If you really think about it, whether we see Jesus as God, a projection of God or a servant/messenger, they are all equally plausible ways of seeing it. Each is just a perspective. Maybe as part of our life's journey we saw one of them as the most meaningful. Someone else found another concept more meaningful. But what that means is that the journey is more important that the perspective that arises. The perspective simply arises as part of the process of exploration. It's a means to an end. As long as you can get to the Father, it doesn't matter so much.
 
Alex P said:
lol... And your not apart of a "sect" of christianity? :rolleyes: Just they way you phrase that seems like youre trying to suggest more than JW's are more than just demnomination of the reilgion of christianity.....
Click to expand...
Denominations/sects, same as far as I'm concerned. Mine is catholicism.
 
Before coming to earth Jesus was called the Word of God.

This title shows that he served in heaven as the one who spoke for God.

He is also called God’s "Firstborn," as well as his "only-begotten" Son. (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:6)

This means that he was created before all the other spirit sons of God, and that he is the only one who was directly created by God.


The Bible explains that this "firstborn" Son shared with Jehovah in creating all other things. (Colossians 1:15, 16)


when God said, "Let us make man in our image," he was talking to this Son. Yes, the very one who later came to earth and was born from a woman had shared in the creation of all things! He had already lived in heaven with his Father for an unknown number of years!—Genesis 1:26; Proverbs 8:22, 30; John 1:3.

So before being born on earth as a man Jesus had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.


He had a spirit body invisible to man, just as God has. (John 4:24)

Jesus himself often spoke of the high position he had held in heaven.

Once he prayed: "Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." (John 17:5)


He also said to his listeners: "You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above." "What, therefore, if you should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?" "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been."—John 8:23; 6:62; 8:58; 3:13; 6:51.

 
Saltmeister said:
It is not our business when someone is wrong about a technicality with regards to religious concepts.
Click to expand...
Christ came so we would know who God is and have a personal relationship with him, and the Spirit is even here with us now so we might know Him even though Christ has ascended back to the Father. Since He came and the gospels have been written there is the ability to know God and to worship Him in spirit and in truth. And those that are in Christ have continued his work to go out and spread the gospel. It is our responsibility if we love our fellow man to point him in the right direction. Whether or not you want to accept Christ as Lord God and Saviour, at least you cannot say you never heard the truth, and any other gospel other than this is not Christianity.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
Christ came so we would know who God is and have a personal relationship with him, quote]
Very true, and we would also know who Jesus christ was .





This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. john 17;3



And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.
luke 8;35


Click to expand...
 
Saltmeister, that is some seriously dangerous dialogue you've got. Perspective! I like it. It reminds me of a verse or two. (everything reminds me of a verse or two)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top