29 Sep 13
Originally posted by galveston75I never said you were. And the Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only cult religion either.
Lol. Back to finger pointing again. Why to you always revert to saying this or that about the JW's when we really are not the ones discussing this with you?
So boring Ron. Psssst! We are not the only believers in the Bible that do not accept the trinity.
The Instructor
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house every sunday morning at the crack of dawn, giving everyone pamphlets about how Satan rules the Earth. My neighbour did a very vulgar thing: He was so sick and tired of being woken up every sunday that when the usual Jehovah's Witnesses arrived, he answered the door naked! They have never bothered him since. It is part of their religion that they have to convert people in their lifetime so I won't criticise them.
I never said you were. And the Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only cult religion either.
The Instructor
29 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by TygertSo you only wish to criticize true Christians, like myself?
The Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house every sunday morning at the crack of dawn, giving everyone pamphlets about how Satan rules the Earth. My neighbour did a very vulgar thing: He was so sick and tired of being woken up every sunday that when the usual Jehovah's Witnesses arrived, he answered the door naked! They have never bothered him since. It is part of their religion that they have to convert people in their lifetime so I won't criticise them.
The Instructor
29 Sep 13
2 edits
Originally posted by TygertReally!? The Jehova's Witnesses come round to your "house" (a house equipped with maids and grounds keepers lets remember)?
The Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house every sunday morning at the crack of dawn, giving everyone pamphlets about how Satan rules the Earth. My neighbour did a very vulgar thing: He was so sick and tired of being woken up every sunday that when the usual Jehovah's Witnesses arrived, he answered the door naked! They have never bothered him since. It is part of their religion that they have to convert people in their lifetime so I won't criticise them.
I smell something foul.
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertHummm. Not quite true. I have been a JW all my life and I've never been told, heard from the stage or have read in any book that we "have to convert" anyone within our lifetime.
The Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house every sunday morning at the crack of dawn, giving everyone pamphlets about how Satan rules the Earth. My neighbour did a very vulgar thing: He was so sick and tired of being woken up every sunday that when the usual Jehovah's Witnesses arrived, he answered the door naked! They have never bothered him since. It is part of their religion that they have to convert people in their lifetime so I won't criticise them.
We have no such rule or command. We come to your door only to share the "good news" that Jesus shared with all he came into contact with and that is with the hope that some would like to hear it and if it is what they are looking for, they may accept.
So perhaps if you are truly interested in knowing why we use our time and money to come to your door, you should ask them and learn the reasons.
It's for sure you'll never see Ron at your door will you? Know why? He's too much above doing this work Jesus COMMANDED his followers to do and he does not understand in the least why it is to be done and even if he did he has no spiritual knowledge to "instruct" with.
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by galveston75I heard that you are asked to keep a record of the hours you have spent ministering though. Isn't that correct?
Hummm. Not quite true. I have been a JW all my life and I've never been told, heard from the stage or have read in any book that we "have to convert" anyone within our lifetime.
We have no such rule or command. We come to your door only to share the "good news" that Jesus shared with all he came into contact with and that is with the hope that some wo ...[text shortened]... least why it is to be done and even if he did he has no spiritual knowledge to "instruct" with.
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by divegeesterYes it is. We are very proud and happy with the work we do and we do like to keep records with the goals we set either for ourselves for maybe the little we can do or to know how we are doing worldwide.
I heard that you are asked to keep a record of the hours you have spent ministering though. Isn't that correct?
I get the serious impression that most don't like that we do that as it shows how serious we take this and want to keep track of this work Jesus commanded us to do. It seems to make many mad that we do because it shows how little other religions do this work if at all. On the other hand it does impress many who are looking to serve their God in a very serious fashion and this record keeping proves we do as we preach.
But no one is under some rule that we have to convert someone or else...
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterI recall listening to a discussion between two people who disagreed on how
I do not see sonship this way, he loves God and the Lord Jesus. He has his reasons to believe as he does and is still a brother in Christ. No one can know more than they have been taught, and no one knows everything, other than God. I cannot say with 100% accuracy that God is not a triune God, but I am about 99% sure that He is not. I only know that I ha ...[text shortened]... from His word or some other way, I will stay with my convictions, there is one God and one Lord.
people need to be baptized. One believed in Jesus's name, the other in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the discussion was that if it was
done wrong they will end up in Hell. I thought it was laughable that
someone could think someone could be baptized one way live their full lives
out loving God and doing everything they could to serve and honor Him,
only to find out that OOPS when you got saved they said this instead of that
now you go to hell.
What I do know is that I love the Lord and He is just that, my Lord, I love
God and I know this, He is my God. I am a sinner, and I need the grace of
God to cover my sins. I know I'm not worthy, I've never been worthy of
God's grace even at my very best, I cast my righteousness away and ask
only for Jesus's forgiveness, His grace and mercy. I know he entered my
life and forever changed me when I was 25 and that was quite a while ago.
I don't concern myself with people's judgment that much, I'm sure even as
I look at myself I fall short. If I don't have God's grace I'm doomed, what I
do know God is worthy of my love and obedience, and Jesus' forgiveness
and will for my life is what I seek.
I'll let God sort out those that belong to Him, I will do my best to love both
God and those that God puts in my life, forgiving those that wrong me as
I want forgiven by God. I hope I put no stumbling block in front of anyone
who needs God, nor do I want to put a rope around anyone's neck that
is trying to seek God and pull them away from the Lord.
Kelly
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThank you Kelly, I agree and have the same sentiments. I also was humbled by God's Grace to me, to love such a lowly sinner.
I recall listening to a discussion between two people who disagreed on how
people need to be baptized. One believed in Jesus's name, the other in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the discussion was that if it was
done wrong they will end up in Hell. I thought it was laughable that
someone could think someone could be baptized one way live th ...[text shortened]... a rope around anyone's neck that
is trying to seek God and pull them away from the Lord.
Kelly
Now I am trying to get past that and see myself as God sees me. He looks at you and me and says we are more than conqueror's through him that loved us and gave himself for us. He does not look at our sin, that has been paid for.
We no longer see Jesus in the flesh, he is a glorified being now. We see him as a conqueror, who has overcome sin for us. We need to fix our eyes on who he is now to grow.
Thanks for your wise comments...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Sep 13
6 edits
Originally posted by checkbaitercheckbaiter,
First of all brother, no, I know being "saved" is only the beginning. I was born again in 1974. Now to Elohim...
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)
The word “God” is Elohim, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. In this I agree... It is used in a plural sense o ...[text shortened]... nt the conclusion that the Hebrew word Elohim inherently contains the idea of a compound nature.
My responses, as I warned, are probably going to be made to lean towards my intended topic points.
First of all brother, no, I know being "saved" is only the beginning. I was born again in 1974. Now to Elohim...
You've been a Christian for a fair amount of time. Good.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)
The word “God” is Elohim, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. In this I agree... It is used in a plural sense of “gods” or “men with authority,” and in a singular sense for “God,” “god,” or “a man with authority, such as a judge.”
Since the subject matter in Genesis 1:1 is the creation of all things, including men, we may reasonably rule out that "men of authority" should be understood. Men have not been created yet in Genesis 1:1.
The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, considered to be one of the best available, has as its first usage for Elohim: “rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels, gods.”
Unless angels assisted God in creation, we may rule out angels as being part of the Elohim. Hebrews says God "Who [God] makes His angels winds ... etc" (Heb. 1:7 quoting Psalm 104:7) we can probably rule out the angels whom it says God has made.
The other reason we can rule out the angels as intended in Genesis 1:1 is that God spread out the earth and stretched out the heavens "alone" and asks rhetorically "Who was with Me?" (Isa. 44:24)
"Thus says Jehovah who redeemed you ... I am Jehovah who makes all things, Who alone stretches out the heavens, Who spread out the earth (Who was with Me?)" (See Isa. 44:24)
Since Jehovah God knows of no one else, including angels, who accompanied Him to create all things - "In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth" can be safely understood to not include angels in carrying out of that act.
We are still stuck with the Triune God as the most likely candidate.
Elohim is translated “gods” in many verses. Genesis 35:2 reads, “Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you,” and Exodus 18:11 says, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods.”
We may safely comprehend that Elohim in Genesis 1:1 does not refer to any other gods, ie. fallen angels or demons masquerading as "gods".
Isaiah 44:8 - "Is there a God besides Me? Or is there any other Rock? I do not know of any ."
God knows of no other God besides Him. So Elohim's plurality in Genesis 1:1 cannot imply other gods real or counterfeit.
John 1:1 has the Word with God and was God. And the Word became flesh in verse 14 - the Son of God - the Son of Man. Since "He as in the beginning with God" (John 1:2) and WAS God too (v.1) we have God and His Word Who became flesh as best candidates to compose the Elohim Who created the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1.
In fact concerning this Word - "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one things came into being which has come into being." (v.3)
The Triune God is the best interpretation of Elohim in Genesis 1:1. Extra judges, extra angels, extra men, extra angels are all ruled out.
It is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9. It is translated “angels” (KJV) or “heavenly beings” (NIV) in Psalm 8:5. That is its plural use, and there is no evidence that anyone thought of these “gods” as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves.
In creation all others besides God Himself alone are ruled out as comprising Elohim. And in the great commission the saved are not told to be baptized into the Name of any angels, other deities, various judges, other gods, etc. The one Name into which believers are to be plunged is Father - Son - Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19) .
The Creator is best understood as the Triune God. And the divine life into which believers are to be immersed is best understood as the Triune God - His singular NAME - "the Father - the Son - the Holy Spirit".
Elohim is also translated as the singular “god” or “judge,” and there is no hint of any “compound nature” when it is translated that way.
The Word was with God and the Word became something that the Word was not before - flesh (John 1:1, 14). So some compounding has to be understood unless you reject the incarnation of God as a man.
The Moslem and the Orthodox Jew would argue that God has never become a man, along with the Jehovah's Witness of course. But as a Christian - "the Word (Who was with and WAS God) became flesh [b](John 1:14) .
Limited as human language is, to say that human nature was "compounded" with the uncreated eternal God in incarnation is reasonable, if not completely without potential misunderstanding.
If you believe as I do that "the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us ..." (John 1:14) then you should believe that God "BECAME" something. And this becomming could conceivably be refered to as a compounding. What He did not have before He took upon Himself.
Humanity is an item of creation - "God created man ..." (Genesis 1:27) . So what was uncreated and eternal compounded around Himself an item of His creation. He became a man. And "compounding" could be used to express this mysterious action of incarnation.
An example is Exodus 22:20, which reads, “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.” Another example is Judges 6:31: “If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” In Exodus 7:1, God says that He has made Moses a “god” (Elohim) to Pharaoh. Again, in Judges 11:24, the pagan god Chemosh is called Elohim, and in 1 Samuel 5:7, the pagan god Dagon is called Elohim,
Surely you agree that Baal and Dagon can be ruled out as candidates for God/s referred to as Elohim in Genesis 1:1.
yet Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or “uniplural,” or that the people who worshipped them thought they were.
The point of the stories you referred really should be enough to distinguish our God from those in competition with Him such as Baal and Dagon. In fact laboring to see how we might compare the true God with these demons is really a rather worthless waste of time.
The idols whom the nations sacrificed to were demons.
Deuteronomy 32:17 - "They sacrificed to demons, to those who were no god, To gods they did not know."
Why should there even be a question in comparing the Elohim of Genesis 1:1 with demons ? It should be out of the question that some comparison should be sought between the one God we know as the true God with demons.
Exactly how to translate Elohim in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars. The question is whether Elohim in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. The KJV says “judge.” The versions are divided between them, some translating Elohim as a man,
We may rule out a man as being party to Elohim's creating of the heavens and the earth.
others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons.
I think the Christian should labor to understand rather than labor to misunderstand.
I don't think we should labor to see how easily we may apply triunity to Baal or Dagon or demons or angels. I don't think we should waste time seeing if we can insert any of these into Elohim in the opening introduction to Him in Genesis 1:1.
As we go through the whole revelation of the Bible it is, however, reasonable to pick up that the Word - the Son of God is included in Elohim and the Holy Spirit is included.
I think you are arguing "How easily can I misunderstand?"
I think that is the wrong way of going about ascertaining in light of the whole Bible - Who Elohim is to the saved.
If it did, it could not be translated as “god” when referring to a pagan god, or as “judge” when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word Elohim inherently contains the idea of a compound nature.
It is far more likely that Genesis 1:1's Elohim is Father - Son - Holy Spirit than it is that we should understand "man, demons, foreign gods, Baal, Dagon, angels ... etc."
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThanks Kelley but he really big problem for some reason many people in most religions don't see or concern themselves with is the truth. If love and doing good was all we need in our worship to God then scriptures such as this where it says “God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”—JOHN 4:24.
I recall listening to a discussion between two people who disagreed on how
people need to be baptized. One believed in Jesus's name, the other in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the discussion was that if it was
done wrong they will end up in Hell. I thought it was laughable that
someone could think someone could be baptized one way live th ...[text shortened]... a rope around anyone's neck that
is trying to seek God and pull them away from the Lord.
Kelly
Notice the last word in that scripture is "truth".
Why is that not only there but in fact all thru the Bible when it comes to our worship and relationship with God? How many humans have lost their life's and relationship with God for even seemingly small things, or even doing something in the name of God, but still being wrong?
Deut 4:24 says of this of God:
Deuteronomy 4:24
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
24 for Jehovah thy God is a fire consuming -- a zealous God.
Other translations take his name out but say "he is a God of exclusive devotion."
You seem to be saying that some are confused, is it God's name or the Son's we get baptised in or actually worship?
This is where the absolute truth of who they are is important and not to let them work it out. They know who they are and we have too also know the truth of this matter according to Deut. If you are worshipping the wrong spirit being, it could be a really bad mistake.
Jesus himself very clearly said "it is his Father we alone must worship" did he not?
You have to know the truth.......not leave it up to someone else.
29 Sep 13
Originally posted by sonship"The Triune God is the best interpretation of Elohim in Genesis 1:1. Extra judges, extra angels, extra men, extra angels are all ruled out."
checkbaiter,
My responses, as I warned, are probably going to be made to lean towards my intended topic points.
First of all brother, no, I know being "saved" is only the beginning. I was born again in 1974. Now to Elohim...
You've been a Christian for a fair amount of time. Good.
[quote]
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God c ...[text shortened]... than it is that we should understand "man, demons, foreign gods, Baal, Dagon, angels ... etc."
Or how about NO interpretation and take the Bible exactly for what it says. " "God is one (1) God"
If he were indeed not a single God or being, that scripture is false and should not be in the Bible.
If it were wrong Jesus had how many years on this earth to explain that it indeed was wrong and in fact he is also God along with the holy spirit and the trinity is in fact a correct fact in the Bible?
You'd think that major dontrinal change from the rest of the Bible would have been corrected by Jesus. But nothing, nada, not one mention of it even in the slightest.
So no, no inerpretations are ever allowed with truths..........