Bart's Invitation

[DonCameron]

Hi YLTYLT,

First, you asked...

Do you believe that all people existed as a spirit before they were born?

No. Only Jesus.

Next, You asked me to comment on Isaiah 40:3 when compared to Matthew 3:3.

Matthew 3:3 mentioned how John the Baptist quoted from Isaiah 40:3 where it mentioned about preparing the way of Yehovah. But Jesus is the one who come along.

The point I think that you and PL are making is therefore Jesus must be Yehovah and therefore he is God.

If I have that right, here is my concern about reaching what seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

My understanding is that "the LORD" (Yehovah) of the Old Testament is God the Father and that Jesus is his Son. For example, Jeremiah 10:10 says that "Yehovah is the living God" and Matthew 16:16 Peter said that Jesus is "the Son of the Living God." Another example is Psalm 110:1 where "The LORD" is said to be speaking to David's Lord, Jesus.

Now, I know that the Trinity teaches that although Jesus is God, he is not God the Father, and that the Father is not the Son. But if we understand Matthew 3:3 they way I think you and PL apply it, it ends up proving that Jesus (God the Son) is the Yehovah (God the Father) of the Old Testament. But again, the Trinity doesn't teach such a thing.

Therefore, I feel there must be another way of understand Matthew 3:3. I don't recall where I've seen it in the Bible but it seems that there is another case where it speaks of preparing the way of Yehovah, but it was someone else who actually came. It might have been Moses.

I feel the answer is that God comes by means of a representative. His representative in the first century was Jesus Christ.

That may not be a very satisfying answer, but that's the way I understand it.

Don

[DonCameron]

Hi bizzt,

You asked...

What about the Holy Spirit? Or is there just two Spirits Jesus and God? If this is so Did God therefore Create Jesus?

I understand God's Holy Spirit to be the invisible dynamic force that God uses to do what He does. I don't think of the Holy Spirit as being a Person even though it is personified at times.

I think of Jesus as "the only begotten Son of God." If that means that God the Father created him, then that's what I believe. The fact that Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" leans me in that direction.- Colossians 1:15

If you (or anyone else) let me know what you think "only begotten Son" and "firstborn of all creation" means I'll let you know if that's what I believe.

Don

[FFC]

My understanding is that "the LORD" (Yehovah) of the Old Testament is God the Father and that Jesus is his Son. For example, Jeremiah 10:10 says that "Yehovah is the living God" and Matthew 16:16 Peter said that Jesus is "the Son of the Living God." Another example is Psalm 110:1 where "The LORD" is said to be speaking to David's Lord, Jesus.

Now, I know that the Trinity teaches that although Jesus is God, he is not God the Father, and that the Father is not the Son. But if we understand Matthew 3:3 they way I think you and PL apply it, it ends up proving that Jesus (God the Son) is the Yehovah (God the Father) of the Old Testament. But again, the Trinity doesn't teach such a thing.

You could also look at it this way. Jehovah is God...period...and God and The Father are interchangable terms, just Like Jesus and God, and The Holy Spirit and God are interchangable terms since the three are God.

Just do a study and you'll see that all the attributes of Jehovah God are attributed to The father, The Son, and The holy Spirit. To make it even more interesting you'll see that the attributes of the three are also attributed to each other throughout the scriptures.

[puritan lad]

Don,

The point I was making wasn't that Jesus was God the Father, but that He was God, period. The essence of the Trinity is that there is One God, and that God the Father is that God, God the Son is that God, and God the Spirit is that God. There can be no doubt that Jesus is referred to as Jehovah, Adonai, El, and Elohim. Certainly that puts your view of denying His deity in peril.

BTW, Did you answer Acts 20:28?

In any case, we are just getting started

In Numbers 21:6, we see that "the LORD (yehovah - the self-existing One) sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. Paul, the inspired Apostle, attributes this work to Christ (1 Corinthians 10:9).

EDIT: The word is CHRISTOS (Strong's 5547) in 1 Cor. 10:9. (I don't like the Nearly Inspired Version).

He is called the "Mighty God (el)" and "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6), and "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6).

Finally, I must ask you about this...

This gets a little tricky when it comes to what Jesus said about this verse in Matthew 22:41-46. So tricky in fact that even the Pharisees may not have been able to follow what Jesus was trying to explain to them. But I think I understand what he said.

Considering that the pharisees spoke the same language as Jesus and understood the slang and other eccentricities, on what basis would you suggest that you understood Jesus' words better then them? It is quite obvious what they understood Him to say.

[Gman]

This one again? We've been there, done that already... Next...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/ab ... asc-0.html

or

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/songod.html

[Turgonian]

"Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing."

That sure doesn't sound to me like Jesus was claiming to be equal with God. I cannot picture God the Father ever saying, "I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative." That just doesn't sound like something Almighty God would ever say.

'I cannot picture God the Father ever saying'... But this is God the Son speaking here, who said He was completely dependent on God the Father.
The Son has the same divine nature of the Father, but is begotten by the Father and therefore in some sense subordinate. God's Wisdom does not think and/or act differently from God.

[DonCameron]

Hello PL,

You and I were commenting on Psalm 110:1 and what Jesus said about it in Matthew 22:41-46. I had mentioned that what Jesus said gets a bit complicated but that I think I understand what he was saying. But I'm not so sure the Pharisees understood what Jesus said.

You then then said to me...

Considering that the pharisees spoke the same language as Jesus and understood the slang and other eccentricities, on what basis would you suggest that you understood Jesus' words better then them? It is quite obvious what they understood Him to say.

But did those Pharisees understand what Jesus was saying?

Jesus asked them, "If David calls (the Messiah) 'my Lord,' how is he his son?"

Did those Pharisees know the answer to Jesus question? You said, "It is quite obvious what they understood Him to say." But did they? Matthew said they didn't understand what he said.

Matthew said, "Nobody was able to say a word in reply to Jesus."

Here is what I think the answer is: When Jesus resurrects David in the future he will be David's Lord. But 2000 years ago Jesus was born in the line of David and therefore was "David's son."

Does anyone of the Forum understand what Jesus said differently?

Don

[Turgonian]

Or weren't the Pharisees able to reply because they had to admit His reasoning was correct? Grudging assent, rather than misunderstanding?

How do you explain John 20:28 (Thomas: 'My Lord and my God!')? Note that Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas.

And Colossians 2:9, 'In Him [Christ] all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form'?

And I Timothy 3:16, 'God was manifest in the flesh'?

[Byblos]

John,

You asked..

You said Jesus was a spirit, the same way God is a spirit. Are you now saying that angels are spirits the same way God is a spirit? So in fact God sent an angel to be his son?

My understanding is that angels exist in the same spirit form as God. Although, God (and now his Son) are the only ones who have immortal, self-sustaining spirit life. The angels must depend upon God's spirit to sustain their lives. Jesus doesn't.

I just think in terms of God sending his only-begotten son.

Don

I'm not sure I follow but I will try to summarize again:

God is a self-sustaining spirit
Angels are dependent spirits

Jesus was a dependent spirit
Jesus became a self-sustaining spirit/body after the resurrection
or
Jesus was always self-sustaining spirit
Jesus became self-sustaining body after the resurrection

Which one of the above you think most closely describes what you believe?

[DonCameron]

Hi John,

You have worded things in a way that I have not thought of, but here is how I will try to answer...

God is a self-sustaining spirit
Angels are dependent spirits

God does not depend on any outside source for his life. He has self-contained or sustained immortal life. That's what I think immortality means. Not just life that lasts forever but life that is self sustaining. At this point I think that only God the Father and his Son have this kind of life so far. There are others (including his faithful disciples) who will also received that form of life when Jesus resurrects them. The angels must remain 'plugged into God's force of life (spirit). Upon their resurrection humans who receive immortality will then have a higher form of life than the angels.

Jesus was a dependent spirit
Jesus became a self-sustaining spirit/body after the resurrection

Yes. I don't think Jesus received his Father's gift of immortal life until after his resurrection. It seems to me that if Jesus had had immortality before he died, he would not have been able to die. This is another reason why I have felt that Jesus was not God because God cannot die; God cannot be killed.

Jesus was always self-sustaining spirit
Jesus became self-sustaining body after the resurrection
Which one of the above you think most closely describes what you believe?

As above, I don't think Jesus had self-staining immortal life prior to his resurrection. My thinking is that man does not have the power or the ability to kill someone who has immortal life. When Jesus was a man on earth, just like the rest of us he was completely dependent on "ruahh" (spirit) from his Father to keep breathing (neshama) in order to stay alive. If his Father had not resurrected him (Romans 10:9) Jesus would not exist in any form of life today.

I guess that pretty much describes what I believe.

Don

[Byblos]

Hi John,

You have worded things in a way that I have not thought of, but here is how I will try to answer...

God is a self-sustaining spirit
Angels are dependent spirits

God does not depend on any outside source for his life. He has self-contained or sustained immortal life. That's what I think immortality means. Not just life that lasts forever but life that is self sustaining. At this point I think that only God the Father and his Son have this kind of life so far. There are others (including his faithful disciples) who will also received that form of life when Jesus resurrects them. The angels must remain 'plugged into God's force of life (spirit). Upon their resurrection humans who receive immortality will then have a higher form of life than the angels.

Jesus was a dependent spirit
Jesus became a self-sustaining spirit/body after the resurrection

Yes. I don't think Jesus received his Father's gift of immortal life until after his resurrection. It seems to me that if Jesus had had immortality before he died, he would not have been able to die. This is another reason why I have felt that Jesus was not God because God cannot die; God cannot be killed.

Jesus was always self-sustaining spirit
Jesus became self-sustaining body after the resurrection
Which one of the above you think most closely describes what you believe?

As above, I don't think Jesus had self-staining immortal life prior to his resurrection. My thinking is that man does not have the power or the ability to kill someone who has immortal life. When Jesus was a man on earth, just like the rest of us he was completely dependent on "ruahh" (spirit) from his Father to keep breathing (neshama) in order to stay alive. If his Father had not resurrected him (Romans 10:9) Jesus would not exist in any form of life today.

I guess that pretty much describes what I believe.

Don

Ok, thanks for the explanation. One more question (I might have more later):

What sets Jesus apart from any other ordinary human being (other than the fact that he was chosen by God to be his 'representative' on earth)?

[DonCameron]

John,

You asked...

What sets Jesus apart from any other ordinary human being (other than the fact that he was chosen by God to be his 'representative' on earth)?

As you know, Jesus was born without inheriting the sin that the rest of picked up from Adam.

Don

[Byblos]

John,

You asked...

What sets Jesus apart from any other ordinary human being (other than the fact that he was chosen by God to be his 'representative' on earth)?

As you know, Jesus was born without inheriting the sin that the rest of picked up from Adam.

Don

LOL! Yes, I know that very well, we just had a very lively discussion as to how this came about in another thread. But ok, I guess that answers my next question which would have been what set Jesus apart from all other representatives, such as Moses. Thanks.

Now the next question is, why do you think would God create an ordinary being (albeit free of original sin) and give him redemptive power over all of humanity? What is the message you think God is trying to send? And why did he choose this time to do it (and not with Moses, for example)?

Please note that I really don't have some hidden agenda or goal I'm trying to get at; I'm just trying to understand your point of view, that's all (in case my questions seem a little disjointed).

[DonCameron]

John,

You asked...

Why do you think God would create an ordinary being (albeit free of original sin) and give him redemptive power over all of humanity?

First of all I don't think of Jesus as ever having been "an ordinary being."

As to why I think God would provide a perfect, sinless human with redemptive power over all humanity, it is because I feel that a perfect human is all that is necessary to redeem all humanity. Since one man (Adam, who was created sinless), is responsible for the sin that has been passed on to all humanity, then one sinless man can redeem all humanity.

This is what it sounds to me like Paul explained to the Corinthians...

Since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam (a man) all are dying, so also in the Christ (a man) all will be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:21,22

I recall reading where some have reasoned that if Jesus was just a man that his death would not have been sufficient to redeem all mankind. They say that Jesus would have to have been God in order for his death to accomplish this.

Naturally, I don't see it that way.

You asked...

Why did God choose this time to do it (and not with Moses, for example)?

I assume it has something to do with God's promise to Abraham and the time it took for the outworking of his Will through the Nation of Israel which provided a shadow of the things to come relative to his Son and his death on the Cross.

Don

[Canuckster1127]

Don,

This may be slightly off topic and if it is too personal a question, you may decline to answer.

If I understand correctly, you used to be a part of the Jehovah's Witnesses and over time, you became aware of issues within the leadership structure and accompanying motives, that lead you to leave as well as to write a book revealing what it was that lead you to that decision; an expose on the organization to help others involved or investigating decide against entering.

If that's not generally true, please correct me.

Based on some comments you've made here, you did not reject JW doctrine so much as you rejected the corruption of the leadership and running of the organization.

You're not currently attending a church of any form, for reasons you do not state, and weren't directly asked.

I may be reading into things here so I know I'm on some touchy ground, but how can you separate entirely the doctrine of the JW with their structure and the resultant organization that has grown based upon that doctrine?

I'm glad you are here and engaging with the issues that you are. Overall you've been respectful, forthcoming and involved in a manner that has been good to see and I believe has allowed for some learning and better understanding although, I haven't seen much evidence of anyone changing their minds.

Maybe I'm reading too much into things, and again, maybe this is too personal, but as you've been here a while and we've learned these things from you, I just have to ask why you would want to hold so doggedly to the doctrine that resulted in the organization of the JW's?

There are other demoninations that hold some similarity in varying degrees such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostalism etc (which I'm not advocating but noting they are out there.) Why would you remain apart from any direct fellowship and continue to defend and promote the same doctrine?

Sorry if that's too blunt. If you'd rather discuss this by e-mail or private message that's fine. Of you're fully within your rights to decline as well.

It just strikes me as something of an elephant in the room while we engage with you on these points.

Regards,

Bart