tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post2881868852308135136..comments2023-04-17T21:27:49.092+08:00Comments on Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!: What is a Jehovah's Witness? #2: Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 (1)Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag: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-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.com