God has a god.

[Checkpoint]

Scriptures tell us that God the Father is the God of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Anyone who has a god is not, by definition, God.

Therefore, Jesus Christ is not the one true God.

God the Father has no god.

He is therefore, by definition, God Himself, the only true God.

What say you?

Relevant scriptures

Psalm 45:7;Hebrews 1:9

You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Mark 15:34

And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema
sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

2 Corinthians 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,

Ephesians 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms.

Colossians 1:3

We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

1 Peter 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By His great mercy, He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 338 by PinSeeker]

What your author says isn't true just because he wants it to be.



.

[brianbbs67]

I don't see why it has to be accepted that the verse is referring to Jesus. It could just as well be referring to Jehovah.

Well, a person is free to accept what he/she wants to accept, but merely doing so doesn't necessarily mean that person is correct just because they accept it in that particular way.

To me, the verse fits Jehovah better than Jesus.

Well, because you want it to. Understood. But that doesn't make it so.

Here's the proper understanding of that verse (17) in its context in the passage:

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, ..."
This passage has been misinterpreted as if Paul had meant to say that Christ is of a spiritual essence. Those who do this connect it with John 4:24 ("God is a Spirit"). Paul's statement, however, has nothing to do with Christ’s essence, but simply points out his office, for it is connected with what goes before, where he says the doctrine of the Law is literal, and not merely dead, but even an occasion of death. But, he says, Christ is now the Law's Spirit, meaning by this that the Law will be living and life-giving, only if it is breathed into by Christ.

The passage teaches us what David pronounces upon the Law, that "the law of the Lord converts souls, enlightens the eyes, imparts wisdom" [Psalm 19:7,8], which fits perfectly with Paul's own statements that the Law is the ministry of sin and death and the letter that does nothing but kill. [2 Corinthians 3:6,7].) But when it is animated by Christ, those things that David makes mention of are justly applicable to it. If Christ is taken away, it is altogether such as Paul describes. Hence Christ is the life of the Law.

"...and where the Spirit of the Lord is, ..."

Paul now describes the manner, in which Christ gives life to the law — by giving us His Spirit. The term 'Spirit' here has a different signification from what it was in the first part of verse 17. Here, it means the Holy Spirit, that Christ himself confers upon his people. Christ is shown, as said, to give life to the Law and is thereby shown to be the fountain of life and thus, figuratively, the universal soul of all who call in Him -- not in respect of essence, but in respect of grace -- because He quickens us by the life-giving influence of his Spirit.

...there is freedom."

Finally, Paul makes mention of the blessing that we obtain from that source. By 'freedom,' Paul does not merely mean emancipation from slavery to sin (figuratively "of the flesh"), but also confidence in our adoption as sons of the living God. In this way, it gels perfectly with what he writes to the Romans:

• "...you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" [Romans 8:15-17].

Grace and peace to you all.

I see. Where is this mysterious verse where God says, naw just kidding you don't have to do this anymore because you believed ? Shouldn't we have to do what we believe in? Shouldn't God, who has always kept His word, keep it?

[PinSeeker]

I see.

I don't think you do...

Where is this mysterious verse where God says, naw just kidding you don't have to do this anymore because you believed ? Shouldn't we have to do what we believe in? Shouldn't God, who has always kept His word, keep it?

Why are you asking this question, Brian? I get your sarcasm, but I don't follow your line of thought. This seems to be a total non sequitur.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

Thank you for responding to my question.

You're most welcome. You're thanks sound a little hollow to me, though.

You see, I have explained that verse and more like it many times on these threads.

Sure you have. Wrongly.

We've had quite a few discussions about the difference between the anointed, born-again co-rulers with Christ and the vast majority of mankind that will live on the earth under the rulership of Christ and his bride in heaven.

Yes, we have, and many of us have demonstrated just how erroneous that understanding is.

It's interesting to see how JW's, timothy's, tigger's and my explanations have gone right over everyone's head.

It's not that anything has "gone over (anyone's) head," onewithhim. There is no lack of understanding regarding JW's, timothy's, tigger's, or your "explanations" in and of themselves.

There is no conflict between our beliefs and the verses in I Corinthians and Romans.

Well, if you think resurrected mankind will always be mortal, as you said, then there is absolutely conflict between that belief and the cited verses in Romans (6:23-23) and Ist Corinthians (15:52-53). Diametric opposition, actually.

I Corinthians speaks of what will happen to the anointed people that have the hope of going to heaven to rule.

No, 1st Corinthians is a personal letter from Paul to the Church (believers) in Corinth, which he wrote to them to correct erroneous views of Scripture and exhort against relational conflicts -- setting them on Biblical (Christ-centered) grounds -- within the Corinthian Church. It is thus applicable to the Church universal to avoid/resolve such misunderstandings and conflicts.

The scripture from Romans applies to ALL Christians...

This I agree with, but 1st Corinthians (and 2nd) does, also. All of Scripture is applicable to all Christians in one way or the other (that we should live one way and/or that we should not live the other).

...those that go to heaven and those who will remain on Earth.

This is very much a false dichotomy. Heaven and earth will one day be one.

We will all have eternal life.

All heart-regenerate Christians, yes. For sure.

What difficulty do you have with that line of thinking?

You mean other than the fact that it is mostly non-biblical?

What your author says isn't true just because he wants it to be.

Well, I don't know who you think my "author" is. I quoted directly from Romans 6 and 1st Corinthians 15. Anyway, true it is. Because the Author -- God, via His Spirit -- said it was/is.

Grace and peace to you.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 328 by onewithhim]

Yes, mankind who is resurrected will always be mortal, like Adam and Eve were. It's no biggie, though, because we don't have to choose to disobey God. As long as we obey Him, we will live. Adam knew that, but he chose to rebel anyway.

This is part of "the truth" JWs constantly claim to possess?

It is directly contradicting 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 3.

How is it contradicting I Corinthians and Romans?

Here is how First Corinthians 15 contradicts the claim that all resurrected mankind will have mortal bodies.

Paul wrote Corinthians to the Christians at Corinth -- so he is addressing believers in Christ when he describes the burial and resurrection of their bodies as follows:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (I Corinthians 15:42-45)

The Christian body that is sown is corruptible, dishonored, weak, and a natural body. This is the physical body which is buried like a seed, or sown, when we die.

At the resurrection, Christians are raised up as incorruptible, glorified, powerful, spiritual bodies.

So Christians will be resurrected with spiritual bodies.

Speaking of those who shall inherit the Kingdom of God in the world to come, Jesus states:

Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels... (Luke 20:36)

Non-believers will be resurrected with mortal natural bodies, believers will be resurrected with immortal spiritual bodies.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life... (Daniel 12:2)

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 328 by onewithhim]

Yes, mankind who is resurrected will always be mortal, like Adam and Eve were. It's no biggie, though, because we don't have to choose to disobey God. As long as we obey Him, we will live. Adam knew that, but he chose to rebel anyway.

This is part of "the truth" JWs constantly claim to possess?

It is directly contradicting 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 3.

How is it contradicting I Corinthians and Romans?

That you ask that question reveals a mindset that is quite unable to comprehend spiritual reality.

These verses are clear and unequivocal, and must not be qualified, added to, or taken away from.

1 Corinthians 15:22-24;42-58. Romans 3:9-20;21-31.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 338 by PinSeeker]

What your author says isn't true just because he wants it to be.

.

No author was quoted. Pinseeker wrote that post.

Even more so, what you say about the anointed and the majority isn't true just because you want it to be.

[onewithhim]

Thank you for responding to my question.

You're most welcome. You're thanks sound a little hollow to me, though.

You see, I have explained that verse and more like it many times on these threads.

Sure you have. Wrongly.

We've had quite a few discussions about the difference between the anointed, born-again co-rulers with Christ and the vast majority of mankind that will live on the earth under the rulership of Christ and his bride in heaven.

Yes, we have, and many of us have demonstrated just how erroneous that understanding is.

It's interesting to see how JW's, timothy's, tigger's and my explanations have gone right over everyone's head.

It's not that anything has "gone over (anyone's) head," onewithhim. There is no lack of understanding regarding JW's, timothy's, tigger's, or your "explanations" in and of themselves.

There is no conflict between our beliefs and the verses in I Corinthians and Romans.

Well, if you think resurrected mankind will always be mortal, as you said, then there is absolutely conflict between that belief and the cited verses in Romans (6:23-23) and Ist Corinthians (15:52-53). Diametric opposition, actually.

I Corinthians speaks of what will happen to the anointed people that have the hope of going to heaven to rule.

No, 1st Corinthians is a personal letter from Paul to the Church (believers) in Corinth, which he wrote to them to correct erroneous views of Scripture and exhort against relational conflicts -- setting them on Biblical (Christ-centered) grounds -- within the Corinthian Church. It is thus applicable to the Church universal to avoid/resolve such misunderstandings and conflicts.

The scripture from Romans applies to ALL Christians...

This I agree with, but 1st Corinthians (and 2nd) does, also. All of Scripture is applicable to all Christians in one way or the other (that we should live one way and/or that we should not live the other).

...those that go to heaven and those who will remain on Earth.

This is very much a false dichotomy. Heaven and earth will one day be one.

We will all have eternal life.

All heart-regenerate Christians, yes. For sure.

What difficulty do you have with that line of thinking?

You mean other than the fact that it is mostly non-biblical?

What your author says isn't true just because he wants it to be.

Well, I don't know who you think my "author" is. I quoted directly from Romans 6 and 1st Corinthians 15. Anyway, true it is. Because the Author -- God, via His Spirit -- said it was/is.

Grace and peace to you.

1) I explained that I Corinthians is written for the anointed born-again co-rulers of Christ. Paul did not write it for the vast majority of mankind that will live on the earth.

2) Romans 6:23, as I already said, is written for everybody, no matter if their hope is heaven or the earth. Doesn't it say that the gift is everlasting life? It doesn't say "immortality." Sure, the co-rulers have immortality, but those of us on Earth can have "everlasting life," as long as we continue to walk with God and Christ as friends, as did Noah and Abraham. This contradicts nothing.

3) I don't see your objection to what we believe, in your comment above where you spoke of a personal letter to the Corinthians congregation.

4) HOW will "heaven and earth one day be one?" This is no false dichotomy that I speak of. Heaven will always be as it is, and the earth will remain as it is, though becoming the Paradise that Jehovah intended it to be under Adam's care. I don't know what you can be referring to when you say they will be one.

5) How can my beliefs be non-biblical? I would venture to say that it is YOUR beliefs that fail to harmonize with the Bible. What do you say about PSALM 37:9,11 & 29?

"Evil men will be done away with, but those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth....The meek will possess the earth and they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace....The righteous will possess the earth and they will LIVE FOREVER ON IT."

It is crystal clear that righteous people will live on Earth forever, not go to heaven. So....my beliefs harmonize with the Bible. Yours do not. We make allowance for SOME of the righteous to go to heaven, as the Bible tells us. But not all (as many scriptures indicate).

6) My mistake about your "author." I thought you were quoting from something. Now I realize that it was you yourself. My comment about the author of those comments--you--remains.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 346 by Checkpoint]

I realized that it was Pinseeker himself after I read his post again. And...."even more so" Checkpoint? You agree with Pinseeker rather than myself? OK. That's your prerogative.



.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 346 by Checkpoint]

I realized that it was Pinseeker himself after I read his post again. And...."even more so" Checkpoint? You agree with Pinseeker rather than myself? OK. That's your prerogative.

.

Yes of course, I do agree with Pinseeker on this vital issue, and he with me and others, just as you JWs agree with one another.

Please give me a clear answer to the question I asked in my post to you:post #153, in the Miracles thread.