tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.comments2023-04-17T21:27:49.092+08:00Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger425125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-90702433545879371872015-08-28T20:37:31.357+08:002015-08-28T20:37:31.357+08:00Anonymous
>Thank you so much for your work Sir...Anonymous<br /><br />>Thank you so much for your work Sir Stephen. <br /><br />It's just "Stephen".<br /><br />>I'm an ex JW myself, but by the grace of the Lord He saved me and guided me into the right path. I'm now a Christian,<br /><br />Praise the Lord!<br /><br />>(JW claims they are, but, i don't think so) <br /><br />I KNOW so! JW's are <b>anti</b>-Christians but don't realise it. <br /><br />>i'm currently a youth pastor in our church. <br /><br />Great!<br /><br />>Your work is a blessing in my ministry! God bless you!<br /><br />Thanks for your feedback. I had to de-activate this my "Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!" to concentrate on my "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</a>" blog, but I hope that what I wrote in this blog will be used of Jesus to save at lease some JWs from the bondage of the Watchtower cult.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-36237103873563299542015-08-28T16:28:20.145+08:002015-08-28T16:28:20.145+08:00Thank you so much for your work Sir Stephen. I'...Thank you so much for your work Sir Stephen. I'm an ex JW myself, but by the grace of the Lord He saved me and guided me into the right path. I'm now a Christian, (JW claims they are, but, i don't think so) i'm currently a youth pastor in our church. Your work is a blessing in my ministry! God bless you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-13831230032350600142015-04-10T07:53:40.884+08:002015-04-10T07:53:40.884+08:00travis
>When are you going to finish this seri...travis<br /><br />>When are you going to finish this series? Historical etc,,,, I cant not find the rest to this series<br /><br />I'm not going to finish this series.<br /><br />As this blog's front page says:<br /><br />"I have decided to repost my `Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!' one-page summary of the Bible's teaching that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old Testament, come in the flesh, so it stays on top as <b>my last post to this blog</b>."<br /><br />I have now prefaced that with:<br /><br />"<b>This blog is inactive</b>. I will briefly respond to comments but I will not publish any more blog posts. I am concentrating all my efforts on my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</a> blog."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-21556214824851240992015-04-10T07:15:43.596+08:002015-04-10T07:15:43.596+08:00When are you going to finish this series? Historic...When are you going to finish this series? Historical etc,,,, I cant not find the rest to this seriestravisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-30209109038653802552015-04-07T06:26:29.316+08:002015-04-07T06:26:29.316+08:00Mac
>Thanks so much for your great summary her...Mac<br /><br />>Thanks so much for your great summary here. I always knew this, that Jesus was Yahweh, but I never saw it broken down and explained so well. Thank you and God bless you!<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />I assume your comment was meant to be under my last post, "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/jesus-is-jehovah.html" rel="nofollow">Jesus IS Jehovah!</a>" since the post you commented under, "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/what-is-jehovahs-witness-2-jesus.html" rel="nofollow">What is a Jehovah's Witness? #2: Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 (1)</a>" does not mention "Yahweh."<br /><br />I am therefore copying it to under my "Jesus IS Jehovah!" post.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-30420769279368822962015-04-07T06:24:06.463+08:002015-04-07T06:24:06.463+08:00Mac
>Thanks so much for your great summary her...Mac<br /><br />>Thanks so much for your great summary here. I always knew this, that Jesus was Yahweh, but I never saw it broken down and explained so well. Thank you and God bless you!<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />I assume your comment was meant to be under my last post, "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/jesus-is-jehovah.html" rel="nofollow">Jesus IS Jehovah!</a>" since the post you this comment is under, "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/what-is-jehovahs-witness-2-jesus.html" rel="nofollow">What is a Jehovah's Witness? #2: Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 (1)</a>" does not mention "Yahweh."<br /><br />I am therefore copying it to under my "Jesus IS Jehovah!" post.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-65149581776087226612015-04-07T06:07:21.423+08:002015-04-07T06:07:21.423+08:00Stephen,
Thanks so much for your great summary he...Stephen,<br /><br />Thanks so much for your great summary here. I always knew this, that Jesus was Yahweh, but I never saw it broken down and explained so well. Thank you and God bless you!<br /><br />-MacAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-44795678754714125392014-09-29T22:56:58.568+08:002014-09-29T22:56:58.568+08:00[continued]
>However, it actually raised anoth...[continued]<br /><br />>However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, "the Mother of God"?<br /><br />This is just a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/jsh2s" rel="nofollow">red herring</a>. The claim that Mary is "the Mother of God" is not an entailment of the doctrine of the Trinity. <br /><br />Indeed, although many, if not most, Roman Catholics say that, they cannot LITERALLY believe that. That Mary (who was herself born in the late 1st century BC) gave birth to God!<br /><br />What they presumably mean, but deliberately confuse it by a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3dhw65" rel="nofollow">fallacy of equivocation</a>, is that Mary was <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6r7n9q" rel="nofollow"><i>theotokos</i>, i.e. the "God-bearer</a>." <br /><br />That is, Mary, uniquely, conceived, bore in her womb and then gave birth to Jesus, who was the God-man. <br /><br />But Mary was the mother of Jesus HUMAN nature, not of His GOD nature. <br /><br />>Compare these Bible verses: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/otqsndb" rel="nofollow">Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28; Colossians 1:15, 16</a><br /><br />None of those are a problem for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. They were all presumably appealed to by Arius at the Council of Nicaea, but the predominantly Greek-speaking bishops saw their fallaciousness and decisively rejected Arianism. <br /><br />The `problem' for the Trinity doctrine is only in JW's minds because of the WB&TS's brainwashing. See my final post "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kbk8x23" rel="nofollow">Jesus <i>IS</i> Jehovah!</a>" and other posts on this blog, where I have answered them.<br /><br />The WB&TS has warned JWs that if they "read the Bible exclusively" they would "revert right back" to the doctrines of CHRISTIANITY:<br /><br />"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ..." (<i>The Watchtower</i>, August 15, 1981, p.29).<br /><br />Which is a tacit admission by the WB&TS that the Bible teaches CHRISTIANITY, including the Trinity, not Watchtowerism.<br /><br />The choice is yours (if you can still make it despite the WB&TS' brainwashing): believe the Bible OR the WB&TS. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-62541510254973335202014-09-29T22:24:14.151+08:002014-09-29T22:24:14.151+08:00[continued]
>Clearly, then, Jesus did not beco...[continued]<br /><br />>Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being. <br /><br />Christianity does not CLAIM that "Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection." Christianity claims what the Bible teaches, that "Christ Jesus," as God the Son, always was "in the form of God," i.e. possessed the "very nature" of God:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/pd2e9ut" rel="nofollow">Php 2:5-7</a> 8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form [Gk. <i>morphe</i> "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lupg73k" rel="nofollow">very nature</a>" NIV] of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. <br /><br />and took upon Himself a human nature:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/l5w8z6w" rel="nofollow">Jn 1:1,14</a>. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."<br /><br />>There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account. <br /><br />It is the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, which is MEDIATING THE VISION of the Father and Son in heaven to Stephen:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/khmd62a" rel="nofollow">Acts 7:55-56</a>. "55 But he [Stephen], FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, `Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God'" (my emphasis).<br /><br />Do you REALLY think that Stephen could, with his own unaided eyes, see into Heaven?<br /><br />>Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l'aube du christianisme-La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity-The Birth of Dogmas): "The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament."<br /><br />According to a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mx7ecob" rel="nofollow">Roman Catholic Forum</a>:<br /><br />"Fr. Boismard’s book, <i>At the Dawn of Christianity: The Birth of Dogmas</i>, published in 1998, is not considered an authoritative book representative of Catholic theology ... for all practical purposes, he has simply abandoned the Catholic faith."<br /><br />It is DISHONEST of the WB&TS to quote ONE Roman Catholic priest who has lost his faith (out of THOUSANDS who haven't) and try to make out that this is somehow evidence against the Trinity. <br /><br />>The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. <br /><br />First, it is not clear that Constantine "championed" Trinitarianism, and even if he did, that does not make Trinitarianism false. More likely Constantine sided with the MAJORITY of bishops at the Council of Nicaea, who were against, or not for, Arianism.<br /><br />Also, that there were continuing "dissensions within the fourth-century Church" after the Council of Nicaea, does not thereby make Trinitarianism false and Arianism true.<br /><br />Indeed it is REMARKABLE, that despite the differences between the major branches of the Christian Church: Easter/Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant; they ALL are agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity and their rejection of Arianism. <br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-38011560654264677582014-09-29T20:39:59.360+08:002014-09-29T20:39:59.360+08:00[continued]
Note that Constantine only "pres...[continued]<br /><br />Note that Constantine only "presided over the OPENING session". And that Constantine "HOPED" (not directed) that the council would "solve the PROBLEM CREATED ... by Arianism," which held that Jesus was not "God" but "a god" (like JWs). That is, "Arianism" was not the original Christian position. It was a recent "problem created."<br /><br />>What does the Bible say?<br />"Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand. `Look! I can see heaven thrown open,' he said, `and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.'"-Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.<br /><br />That is not a problem for the Trinity. The "Son of man" was the One in Daniel's vision in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/pp4fsh8" rel="nofollow">Dn 7:13-14</a> who was given an "an everlasting dominion" that "all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him": <br /><br />13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."<br /><br />That is as good a description of Jesus, the Son of Man, who is also Jehovah God the Son, that one could wish for. But the WB&TS doesn't acknowledge this Son of Man's dominion, nor serve Him, and teaches JWs not to do so either.<br /><br />So the WB&TS and JWs who follow it, not the Bible, will learn the hard way that Jesus, whom they claim is just a created angel, actually is Jehovah God, come in the flesh. See my final post "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kbk8x23" rel="nofollow">Jesus <i>IS</i> Jehovah!</a>" <br /><br />>What did this vision reveal? Filled with God's active force, Stephen saw Jesus "standing at God's right hand." <br /><br />The Greek text of <a href="http://tinyurl.com/k55rrdp" rel="nofollow">Acts 7:55</a> does not say "God's active force." It says <i>pneumatos agiou</i> "spirit holy". This is a classic example of how the WB&TS twists the Scriptures to their own destruction (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kxkmzbv" rel="nofollow">2Pet 3:16</a>).<br /><br />The WB&TS is hypocritical in its <a href="http://tinyurl.com/75l4l" rel="nofollow">straw man</a> criticism of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity by pointing out that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible (when Christianity has never claimed that it is). But then the WB&TS inserts the words "God's active force" which aren't in the original Hebrew or Greek text of the Bible either! The WB&TS does this so as to make the Bible conform to WB&TS doctrine (that the Holy Spirit is not a person), not the other way around.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-46562088623826862302014-09-29T17:57:56.014+08:002014-09-29T17:57:56.014+08:00[continued]
And the answer to the WB&TS's...[continued]<br /><br />And the answer to the WB&TS's question is in the FULL EB quote that the WB&TS dishonestly deleted:<br /><br />"Thus, the NEW TESTAMENT established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." (my emphasis).<br /><br />>What is the origin of the myth?<br /><br />It is NO "myth". Again, the WB&TS's own chosen authoritative source (the EB) stated (but the WB&TS dishonestly deleted): "The NEW TESTAMENT established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity."<br /><br />>"The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation `one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."-New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.<br /><br />I am a Protestant and so I am not bound by Roman Catholic teaching. But I have no problem with the above. Note that it says "The impression COULD arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention" (my emphasis). Not that "the Trinitarian dogma IS in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention." <br /><br />And again the WB&TS is misleading you by dishonestly replacing key words with ellipses. As pointed out in "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c3axu64" rel="nofollow">Trinity deception of Jehovah's Witnesses-Catholic</a>" after "In a sense, this is true" the <i>Encyclopedia</i> continued: "... but it implies an EXTREMELY STRICT INTERPRETATION of the key words Trinitarian and dogma" (my emphasis). <br /><br />And that link makes it clear that the WB&TS's own chosen authoritative source (the EB) continued:<br /><br />"If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental TRINITARIANISM-WENT BACK TO THE PERIOD OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS" (my emphasis). <br /><br />>"The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father.' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."-Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.<br /><br />My later edition 1984 Encyclopædia Britannica does not say that. Instead it says:<br /><br />"<b>Nicaea, councils of</b>, the first and seventh ecumenical councils of the Christian Church. The first Council of Nicaea (325) was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern Church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates. The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some participants, incorporated the nonscriptural word <i>homoousios</i> ("of one substance") into a creed (the Nicene Creed) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father." ("Nicaea, councils of," <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i>, 15th edition, 1984, Benton, Chicago IL, Vol. vii, p.319).<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-6372217856736404672014-09-29T12:11:44.801+08:002014-09-29T12:11:44.801+08:00[continued]
So "Jehovah our God is one ['...[continued]<br /><br />So "Jehovah our God is one [<i>'echad</i>] Jehovah" in Dt 6:4 is FULLY consistent with Jehovah God being a compound unity, e.g. a tri-unity or Trinity.<br /><br />>"You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."-Psalm 83:18.<br /><br />This is consistent with Jehovah God being a tri-unity, three-in-ONE, and being "the Most High over all the earth." Indeed, since His ascension, Christ now IS "the Most High over all the earth":<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/n5hfx6o" rel="nofollow">Eph 1:20-21</a>. 20 that he [God the Father] worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 FAR ABOVE ALL rule and authority and power and dominion, and ABOVE EVERY name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come" (my emphasis). <br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/m7cb5o9" rel="nofollow">Php 2:8-11</a> 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has HIGHLY EXALTED him and bestowed on him the name that is ABOVE EVERY NAME, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (my emphasis).<br /><br />If the WB&TS was consistent in its NWT in replacing Gk. <i>kyrios</i> "Lord" with "Jehovah" where it is a quote from the Old Testament where the Hebrew is YHWH, then it should read "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH" because Paul is quoting from <a href="http://tinyurl.com/oblx9dc" rel="nofollow">Isa 45:23</a> where Jehovah says:<br /><br />"By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: `TO ME every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.' <br /><br />>"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.<br /><br />That the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, is "the only true God," does not preclude the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, also being members of "the [TRI-UNE] only true God."<br /><br />Any more than that there is ONE "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit":<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/qzbel3t" rel="nofollow">Mt 28:19</a> "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (my emphasis)<br /><br />precludes the individual Persons of the Trinity (tri-unity) sharing that same ONE name.<br /><br />If the WB&TS was consistent in this, it would have to say that Jehovah cannot be Lord, because <a href="http://tinyurl.com/l2q2dag" rel="nofollow">1Cor 8:6</a> states that that there is "ONE Lord, Jesus Christ":<br /><br />"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."<br /><br />>"God is only one."-Galatians 3:20.<br /><br />The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, has no problem with this. It states that God IS one, a tri-UNITY, "Three in ONE." But if this is a quote from the WB&TS' <i>New World Translation</i> (NWT), then it is another example of how it inserts words into the Biblical text which are not there. The Greek of <a href="http://tinyurl.com/n67xylx" rel="nofollow">Gal 3:20</a> is: <i>theos eis estin</i>, "God one is," i.e. there is no "only."<br /><br />>Why do most Christian denominations say that God is a Trinity?<br /><br />Again, not "most" but ALL "Christian denominations say that God is a Trinity". If a denomination says that God is NOT a Trinity" then it is NOT Christian.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-4570099196500194612014-09-29T11:39:37.973+08:002014-09-29T11:39:37.973+08:00Anonymous
Thank you for your comment. But before...Anonymous <br /><br />Thank you for your comment. But before you respond to this my reply, please note that it was your first and last comment under this post. My <b>Policies</b> state: "... As this blog is now inactive (see "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/pu9sn2r" rel="nofollow">my last post to this blog</a>"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous whom I assume is that individual) simply won't appear."<br /><br />I am confining my blog posting these days to my <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cewm3cz" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</a> blog, as the Shroud of Turin proves beyond <i>reasonable</i> doubt that Christianity is true and therefore all non-Christianity (including JWism) is false. <br /><br />>Many Christian denominations teach that God is a Trinity. <br /><br />ALL Christian denominations teach the Bible truth that God is a Trinity, i.e. a tri-unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each of whom is by nature God, and together comprise the one God in three persons. <br /><br />If a denomination does not teach the Bible truth that God is a tri-unity, then it is not Christian. That includes the denomination "Jehovah's Witnesses," which is not Christian because it denies that God is a tri-unity.<br /><br />>However, note what the Encyclopædia Britannica states: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies."<br /><br />If you are quoting from Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WB&TS) literature, then it is misleading you, by not fully quoting what the texts actually say. For example, I have the paper 1984 Encyclopædia Britannica, and it says in the ellipses in between "... appears in the New Testament ... The doctrine developed gradually" that:<br /><br />"The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/qzbel3t" rel="nofollow">Matt. 28:19</a>); and in the apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kgtzaja" rel="nofollow">II Cor. 13:14</a>). Thus, THE NEW TESTAMENT ESTABLISHED THE BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY." ("Trinity," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Benton, Chicago IL, Vol. x, p.126. My emphasis).<br /><br />>In fact, the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity. Note these Bible passages:<br /><br />Christianity does not claim that "the God of the Bible is ... PART OF a Trinity." Christianity claims that the God of the Bible IS a Trinity, i.e. a tri-unity, three-in-one. <br /><br />>"Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."-Deuteronomy 6:4.<br /><br />The Hebrew word translated "one" in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/keru69g" rel="nofollow">Dt 6:4</a> is <i>'echad</i> which can mean a COMPOUND UNITY. The same Heb. word <i>'echad</i> is used of the "one flesh" of husband and wife (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/k47pkug" rel="nofollow">Gn 2:24</a>); "one people" comprising many individuals (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/nh38gnx" rel="nofollow">Gn 11:6; 34:16,22</a>); "one voice" of "all the people" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/pcwo2rx" rel="nofollow">Ex 24:3</a>); "one cluster of grapes" comprising many individual grapes (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ng2lo8s" rel="nofollow">Num 13:23</a>); and "one stick" joined to "another stick" making a compound "one stick" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/koobdeg" rel="nofollow">Eze 37:16-17</a>).<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-72172904321350347292014-09-28T23:35:19.777+08:002014-09-28T23:35:19.777+08:00Many Christian denominations teach that God is a T...Many Christian denominations teach that God is a Trinity. However, note what the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”<br /><br />In fact, the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity. Note these Bible passages:<br /><br />“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.<br />“You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18.<br />“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.<br />“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.<br />Why do most Christian denominations say that God is a Trinity?<br /><br />What is the origin of the myth?<br />“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.<br /><br />“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.<br /><br />What does the Bible say?<br />“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”—Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.<br /><br />What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being. There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account. Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l’aube du christianisme—La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity—The Birth of Dogmas): “The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament.”<br /><br />The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, “the Mother of God”?<br /><br />Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28; Colossians 1:15, 16<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-38312555905713662942014-09-26T23:50:33.955+08:002014-09-26T23:50:33.955+08:00Anonymous
>You read all the evidence in the B...Anonymous<br /> <br />>You read all the evidence in the Bible...and it plainly shows that he died on a stake....<br /><br />No it doesn't. See my next post in this series, "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/jesus-was-executed-on-cross-not-stake-2.html" rel="nofollow">Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake! #2: Biblical</a>." <br /><br />>you yourself read it ...and still don't believe it...<br /><br />The WB&TS itself didn't believe that from 1879 to 1931. That's why <i>The Watchtower</i> magazine's logo was a Cross and Crown. And the founder of the WB&TS, Charles Taze Russell <a href="http://www.jwfiles.com/wt_emblems_art_pyramids_occult_un/russell_pyramid_grave.htm" rel="nofollow">has a cross and crown logo on his grave</a>.<br /><br />Then in 1936, the WB&TS's second President, Judge Rutherford, after originally writing that Jesus died on a cross, changed his mind and claimed that Jesus died on a tree.<br /><br />It was only in 1950, after 71 years of its existence, the WB&TS changed its position again and began teaching that Jesus died on a stake.<br /><br />>that's a statement Jesus quoted...shame on you<br /><br />No He didn't. And the ETERNAL shame will be on you, if you don't repent, and believe the BIBLE, not the WB&TS.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-15704881027289061732014-09-26T20:25:14.542+08:002014-09-26T20:25:14.542+08:00You read all the evidence in the Bible...and it pl...You read all the evidence in the Bible...and it plainly shows that he died on a stake....you yourself read it ...and still don't believe it...that's a statement Jesus quoted...shame on you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-71580659726988213722014-09-16T19:07:01.398+08:002014-09-16T19:07:01.398+08:00Nathan
>God is God, while Humans are humans! w...Nathan<br /><br />>God is God, while Humans are humans! we have birth and death while God neither has space or time. How can we equate a human to God's level? [...]<br /><br />As this my Jesus <i>IS</i> Jehovah blog's <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/jesus-is-jehovah.html" rel="nofollow">front page</a> says, I am not posting to it anymore.<br /><br />Neither am I responding to comments<br /><br />Except to point those who don't accept that Jesus of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old Testament, to read carefully through my final post, "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/jesus-is-jehovah.html" rel="nofollow">Jesus IS Jehovah!</a>" which sets out the Biblical evidence that the pre-incarnate Jesus was (and is) Jehovah God the Son.<br /><br />If they are not willing to accept what the Bible clearly teaches, then there is nothing that I can say that would convince them, so I won't waste my time trying. <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-------------------------------<br /><b>Policies</b> Those comments I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. As this blog is now inactive (see "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/pu9sn2r" rel="nofollow">my last post to this blog</a>"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous who I assume is that individual) simply won't appear.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-43154463070463602152014-09-16T17:23:43.147+08:002014-09-16T17:23:43.147+08:00God is God, while Humans are humans! we have birth...God is God, while Humans are humans! we have birth and death while God neither has space or time. How can we equate a human to God's level? <br />We are all Humans failing for our senses, Jesus was God sent no doubt, but not God himself!<br />Are you saying that Jesus took a human birth? for what? if He was God!<br />Don't tell me next that he sacrificed himself to himself? <br />Meaning we are of human thinking that GTF accepted Jesus death as sacrifice and not punish this people, who are bent upon doing only sin, never repent and change lives and go back to our Father! then why is death more now? why are we suffering more? <br />The first commandment is very clear, Our father is saying in Exodus 20:5,6: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” <br />Do you understand, why we are suffering, even in this technologically advanced world?Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15646094627745292419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-10624460917308134572014-05-03T06:53:42.775+08:002014-05-03T06:53:42.775+08:00waco tx
>you quote biblical scriptures showing...waco tx<br /><br />>you quote biblical scriptures showing exactly why JW's believe Jesus is not Jehovah, and then you simply say, most christains know this is false. <br /><br />Thanks for your comment but this my Jesus <i>IS</i> Jehovah! blog is now inactive. See my <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">final, front-page post</a>:<br /><br />"...my "Jesus is Jehovah!" one-page summary of the Bible's teaching that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old Testament, come in the flesh ... stays on top <b>as my last post to this blog</b>. I have lost interest in opposing JWism ..." <br /><br />>Show us where the bible backs you up. ...<br /><br />See that <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">final, front-page of this blog</a>.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-35806856479265257912014-05-03T03:41:15.766+08:002014-05-03T03:41:15.766+08:00you quote biblical scriptures showing exactly why ...you quote biblical scriptures showing exactly why JW's believe Jesus is not Jehovah, and then you simply say, most christains know this is false. Show us where the bible backs you up. Jesus went out of his way to state, not to worship him, but his father. Also Jehovah is the alph and omega, no beginning or end. Jesus is his only begotten son. He was created. End of argument.waco txnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-78651798028627059592014-01-18T12:05:37.847+08:002014-01-18T12:05:37.847+08:00[continued]
>He was not exicuted on a cross bu...[continued]<br /><br />>He was not exicuted on a cross but a stake or pole. If you want to see proof of this please visit http://www.fellowshipoftheway.com/is-the-cross-a-lie I pray that you will see the real truth.<br /><br />Again, you (and the Watchtower) are WRONG. Jesus WAS executed on a two-beamed cross and not on a single pole. See my unfinished series, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/myqckql" rel="nofollow">Jesus <i>was</i> executed on a cross, not a stake!</a>". <br /><br />Also see "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/nb943fb" rel="nofollow">The facts on crucifixion, <i>stauros</i>, and the `torture stake'</a>" by <a href="http://tinyurl.com/n9b7wdd" rel="nofollow">Leolaia (a former JW)</a>:<br /><br />And also see in my post on my The Shroud of Turin blog, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/pgg2dx4" rel="nofollow">My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 5: "The Image of Edessa" (1)</a>", where I have a photo of a stone lion drinking fountain in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yb8omqt" rel="nofollow">ancient Edessa</a> (a major centre of early Christianity), today Sanliurfa in Moslem Turkey, which has an unmistakable cross carved into the stonework, which has escaped the Moslem destruction of almost all of Edessa's Christian past. <br /><br />Here is <a href="http://tinyurl.com/l2c4aed" rel="nofollow">a link to the image itself</a>.<br /><br />And as my caption states, being part of a stone lion, which was " the symbol of the Abgar dynasty," the Christian part of which began with <a href="http://tinyurl.com/79992bf" rel="nofollow">Abgar V (AD 13-50)</a> and the dynasty itself ended with <a href="http://tinyurl.com/nqfzpkd" rel="nofollow">Abgar IX (212-215)</a>, therefore it "must have been erected before AD 215" (and likely before or soon after AD 50):<br /><br />"[Above: A stone lion, the symbol of the Abgar dynasty, bearing a Christian cross, in Sanliurfa (Edessa), which must have been erected before AD 215: Wilson, 2010, plate 15b.]"<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-8542735388966248312014-01-18T11:57:45.054+08:002014-01-18T11:57:45.054+08:00Kenneth
>I doubt that you will post this, but ...Kenneth<br /><br />>I doubt that you will post this, but just in case you do. <br /><br />I post EVERY comment that complies with <a href="http://tinyurl.com/pu9sn2r" rel="nofollow">my stated policies</a>, i.e. that are not "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard":<br /><br />----------------------------<br />Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.<br />----------------------------<br /><br />The only caveat to the above is that this blog is now inactive, so you have had your one and only comment and this is my one and only reply to that comment.<br /><br />>My brother you are in serious error. <br /><br />No, it is NOT ME who is in error. And if you are a JW then YOU are in SERIOUS error.<br /><br />>Number one and most important His name is not Jesus, it is Yahusha, and Yahusha is Yahuah, not Jehovah.<br /><br />We only have Jesus' name in Greek (Gk. <i>'Iesous</i>), in the New Testament, the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote in Greek, and other first-century writings which are all in Greek. So it is just speculation what the EXACT spoken name of "Jesus" was. <br /><br />In the three occurrences in the New Testament where the name "Joshua" is translated: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/o6emfut" rel="nofollow">Lk 3:29; Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8</a>, it is the same underlying Greek word <i>'Iesous</i>.<br /><br />And the underlying meaning of "Joshua" (Gk. <i>'Iesous</i>) is, "Yahweh (is) salvation":<br /><br />"<i>yehoshua'-yeshua`</i> designates ten Hebrew leaders (ISBE, III, pp. 1622, 1743) from Moses' successor Joshua (KJV, Jehoshua in Num 13:16; I Chr 7:27) to the post-exilic high priest Jeshua (Ezra 3:2; Neh 12:10). The former's name was changed from the Hiphil infinitive, Hoshea, `salvation,' to Joshua, with its deeper spiritual connotation of `Yahweh (is) salvation' (Num 13:8, 16). Both men are called `Jesus' in Greek (Acts 7:45; I Esd 5:48), i.e., <i>yeshua`</i> is our Lord's Hebrew name, `for he will save his people from their sins' (Mt 1:21). This may be a shortened form with the divine element omitted, meaning `he will save.'" (Payne, J.B., 1980, "Yahweh," in Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, Vol. I, p.211).<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-56850955234790969782014-01-18T08:10:49.028+08:002014-01-18T08:10:49.028+08:00I doubt that you will post this, but just in case ...I doubt that you will post this, but just in case you do. My brother you are in serious error. Number one and most important His name is not Jesus, it is Yahusha, and Yahusha is Yahuah, not Jehovah. He was not exicuted on a cross but a stake or pole. If you want to see proof of this please visit http://www.fellowshipoftheway.com/is-the-cross-a-lie I pray that you will see the real truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-78080970455987684412013-12-19T08:34:01.451+08:002013-12-19T08:34:01.451+08:00WD
>You have interesting treatises on your blo...WD<br /><br />>You have interesting treatises on your blogs! Powerful proofs of the deity of Christ.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>I just have a simple question: Do you think that the name "Yahweh" refers to the one Being that is Triune God? I mean the one essence of Godhead?<br /><br />Yes. See my post above:<br /><br />---------------------------------<br /><b>What I don't mean by "Jesus is Jehovah"</b> is that the Son is the Father. That Jesus is Jehovah does not preclude the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity (Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2): the Father and the Holy Spirit (Ps 139:7; Isa 40:13 = Rom 11:34 & 1Cor 2:16; Mk 3:28-29; Acts 5:3-4; 13:2; 28:25-27; 2Cor 3:17; Heb 3:7-11 = Ps 95:7-11; Heb 10:15-17 = Jer 31:33), also being Jehovah: the one Triune God.<br />---------------------------------<br /><br />>Then Can we say: Yahweh the Father, Yahweh the Son, Yah. the Spirit? Or it's wrong to say like that?<br /><br />No it's not wrong. I have elsewhere in my "Jesus is Jehovah!" blog referred to "Jehovah God the Father," "Jehovah God the Son" and "Jehovah God the Holy Spirit." <br /><br />See above that Jesus said that He was "I AM" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kk7gf6x" rel="nofollow">Jn 8:24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5-6</a>), where the original Greek of "I am" in those verses is <i>ego eimi</i>, which in the Greek OT (Septuagint) is the self-designation of Jehovah (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ksor4dw" rel="nofollow">Ex 3:14-15; Dt 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 52:6</a>).<br /><br />Also, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/kcqrpbr" rel="nofollow">2Cor 3:17</a> says that "the Lord is the Spirit" which in the Greek effectively is, "Jehovah is the Spirit"<br /><br />>You have wrote about the plural Hebrew word "Elohim", but I see not that you refer to the other plural one that is "Adonai", it's plural form too! Which always used with singular verbs! Don't you think so?<br /><br />I haven't studied that. But as I point out in my post above:<br /><br />---------------------------------<br />Personal pronouns "us" and "our" are used by God/Jehovah of Himself (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/k3bwwnr" rel="nofollow">Gn 1:26; 3:22, 11:7; Isa 6:8</a>).<br />---------------------------------<br /><br />>Thanks a lot<br />>Best regards<br />>W.D.<br /><br />Thanks for your email which I have posted here as a comment so that others can read it and my reply.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-73178788687575643262013-12-16T20:42:38.429+08:002013-12-16T20:42:38.429+08:00jalmar
>Michael is a great Prince
>
>I...jalmar <br /> <br />>Michael is a great Prince<br />><br />>It's a great difference to:<br />><br />>Jesus which is <br />The king of Kings and the Lord of Lords<br /><br />Good point. See my final post, "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/jesus-is-jehovah.html" rel="nofollow">Jesus IS Jehovah!</a>," where under "4. JEHOVAH'S NAMES & TITLES ARE APPLIED TO JESUS" I have: <br /><br />"<b>Lord of lords</b> Jesus is the "Lord of lords, and King of kings" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2017:14;%2019:16&version=ASV" rel="nofollow">Rev 17:14; 19:16</a>). But God is "the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Tim%206:15&version=ASV" rel="nofollow">1Tim 6:15</a>). And Jehovah is the "Lord of lords" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2010:17;%20Ps%20136:3&version=ASV" rel="nofollow">Dt 10:17; Ps 136:3</a>)."<br /><br />The Watchtower's demotion of Jesus, "The King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2019:16&version=ASV" rel="nofollow">Rev 19:16</a>), to a mere angel, is BLASPHEMY!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com