All,

Please take a look at this if you're interested in the subject of the Trinity:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/the-great-trinity-debate-challenge\
/

In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman

This is an automated message that will go out every two weeks as a "reminder
message". Please keep in mind that we have set a "5 post limit" per day. This
makes it easier for us, the moderators, to be able to make sure that the group
is running as smoothly as possible. This message goes out to the group as a
whole and is not singling anyone out. So please help us out by keeping to the "5
post limit" per day. Exceptions may be approved by the moderators at their
discretion. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

The Moderators

This discussion group offers an opportunity for respectful, intelligent
discussion of the theological differences between those who espouse evangelical
theology and those who espouse Jehovah's Witness theology. With the exception of
posts from the moderators and a few others (at the List Owner's discretion), all
posts are moderated. Anyone, including non-members, can submit posts, but only
list members can receive posts by email or download files.

Please note the following rules:

* Standard rules of Netiquette apply.

* Topics must be theological and focused on differences between JWs and
evangelicals. Thus, topics about differences among evangelicals on secondary
issues (tongues, predestination, the rapture, etc.) are not discussed here. See
"What Evangelicals Believe" located in the Files section of this Group. JW
beliefs for our purposes are those taught in the publications of the Watchtower
Societies. Examples of appropriate topics include the following:

-> the Trinity vs. JW views on God, Christ, and holy spirit

-> the Incarnation (pro and con)

-> the Atonement (ransom doctrine, etc.)

-> salvation, grace, faith, and works

-> the nature of the resurrection of Jesus (physical or not?) and the
resurrection of believers

-> the church (e.g., whether there are two classes of the redeemed,
the 144,000 and the Great Crowd; evangelical vs. JW views on human
religious authority in Christian doctrine, practice, and
interpretation of Scripture)

-> the constitution of human nature (differences over the existence of
a soul distinct from the body that exists after death, etc.)

-> the nature of eternal punishment

-> the legitimacy of practices forbidden by JWs but accepted by many
or most evangelicals (various celebrations, blood transfusions,
serving in the military or in political office, the use of the cross
as a religious symbol, etc.)

-> Persons who are neither evangelicals nor JWs may submit posts. Former JWs are
advised not to advertise this fact.

* Bald assertions or mere statements of opinion are not welcome. We are
interested in your reasons for holding the view that you do.

* Posts regarding the moral failures of persons on either side (JW or
evangelical) are not permitted. Posts on the moral *teachings* of either side
are permitted.

* Posts attacking list members' character are not permitted.

* Members may not send harrassing or otherwise unwelcome private emails to one
another.

* Moderators reserve the right to call an end to a thread (discussion topic)
when in their judgment the exchange is not advancing in a fruitful way.

* Try to keep your posts to five a day. Exceeding this number frequently, or
flagrantly, will be considered a list violation.

* Cut unneeded text from previous posts at the bottom of your post.

All decisions regarding the operation of this list are at the discretion of the
moderators.

In Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
List Owner

> Hi Steve,
>
> Excellent.  Thanks for the clarification; for although our modes of expression
are different  in speaking of Christ, our meaning may not be that far apart. 
May I ask you what you mean when you say that "with qualification, Jesus on
earth is not God, but the Son of God"?  What is this qualification?
>
> God bless

Hi Jason.

I didn't want to give the impression that the Son was just a man.  But He is one
personality who is God and man but with the all the trappings of a man.

In Christ,
Steve

--- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, jason homey <banjomaster1@...>
wrote:
> [37895]
> ________________________________
> From: stevku <stevku@...>
> To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 6:52:13 PM
> Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] John 17:3 again (was: Re: Separation of Person
and Nature...).
>
>  
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > No personal offense intended by the following, but, for the sake of
O/orthodoxy, here goes:
> >
> > "If anyone does not confess that there are TWO BEGETTINGS OF GOD the Word,
one BEFORE AGES, FROM THE FATHER, timelessly and incorporeally, the other in the
last days, the begetting of the SAME PERSON, who came down from heaven and was
made flesh of the Holy and Glorious GOD-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, and was
born of her, let him be anathema." -.Constantinople II, A.D. 553 (emphasis
mine).
> >
> > God bless,
> > Jason
>
> No offense taken. I agree with this. The Word born out of God became flesh and
was born of Mary.
>
> In Christ,
> Steve
>  
> Hi Steve,
>  
> Excellent.  Thanks for the clarification; for although our modes of expression
are different  in speaking of Christ, our meaning may not be that far apart. 
May I ask you what you mean when you say that "with qualification, Jesus on
earth is not God, but the Son of God"?  What is this qualification?
>  
> God bless
>  
>  
> --- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, jason homey <banjomaster1@ ...>
wrote:
> > [37890]
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > No personal offense intended by the following, but, for the sake of
O/orthodoxy, here goes:
> >
> > "If anyone does not confess that there are TWO BEGETTINGS OF GOD the Word,
one BEFORE AGES, FROM THE FATHER, timelessly and incorporeally, the other in the
last days, the begetting of the SAME PERSON, who came down from heaven and was
made flesh of the Holy and Glorious GOD-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, and was
born of her, let him be anathema." -.Constantinople II, A.D. 553 (emphasis
mine).
> >
> > God bless,
> >
> > Jason>
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: stevku <stevku@>
> > To: evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com
> > Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:14:41 PM
> > Subject: [evangelicals_ and_jws] John 17:3 again (was: Re: Separation of
Person and Nature...).
> >
> >  
> > Hi Paul.
> >
> > My thought on John 17:3 is that, with qualification, Jesus on earth is not
God but the Son of God, the kin-related Son of God, and would call God His only
true God, and Mary His only true mother.
> >
> > Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
> >
> > In Luke 1:35 Jesus was particularly called the Son of God because God rather
than a man was His Father, and Mary was His mother. God had a Son in the human
realm for the first time. God performed a miracle in Mary.
> >
> > Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
> >
> > I see that the Word became fully human when He was born of Mary. As a human
He had the trappings of a man. As a man He had to be given power and authority
from God. This explains your scriptures concerning that Jesus had to receive
things from God.
> >
> > I see it like when a pure brown eyed person marries a blue eyed person, the
offspring is fully brown eyed, having the dominant brown eyed trait, but carries
the recessive blue eyed trait. Jesus is fully human but God is nonetheless part
of who He is. And wherever God is, all of God is. Jesus is both God and man.
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Steve
> >
> > --- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, "standardbearer"
<pgr_drifter@ ...> wrote:

To all,

Because it is a recurring trend on this forum for JWs to appeal to Tertullian in
favour of their Theology and Christology over against that of Nicaea and the
other Ecumenical Councils, I am presenting below an extended quotation from ch.
27 of Tertullian`s Against Praxeas which will sufficiently - although,
unfortunately, will not effectually - settle the question once and for all
concerning which side of the fence Tertullian properly belongs.  If there is
anyone who is able to reconcile what Tertullian says here with the
presuppositional framework which lies behind the Theological and Christological
views of the Witnesses, please, be my guest.  I would be very interested in
seeing how it is possible for this to be done!

Jason


and this must be the point of our inquiry: How the Word became flesh—whether it
was by having been transfigured, as it were, in the flesh, or by having really
clothed Himself in flesh. Certainly it was by a real clothing of Himself in
flesh. For the rest, we must needs believe God to be unchangeable, and incapable
of form, as being eternal. But transfiguration is the destruction of that which
previously existed. For whatsoever is transfigured into some other thing ceases
to be that which it had been, and begins to be that which it previously was not.
God, however, neither ceases to be what He was, nor can He be any other thing
than what He is. The Word is God, and "the Word of the Lord remains for ever,"—
even by holding on unchangeably in His own proper form. Now, if He admits not of
being transfigured, it must follow that He be understood in this sense to have
become flesh, when He comes to be in the flesh, and is manifested, and is seen,
and is handled by means of the flesh; since all the other points likewise
require to be thus understood. For if the Word became flesh by a transfiguration
and change of substance, it follows at once that Jesus must be a substance
compounded of two substances— of flesh and spirit—a kind of mixture, like
electrum, composed of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold (that is
to say, spirit) nor silver (that is to say, flesh)—the one being changed by the
other, and a third substance produced. Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be
God for He has ceased to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor can He be Man
incarnate for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh which the Word became.
Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither; He is rather some
third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He
is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted
intimating (of the flesh), that "God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore
established it by the will of the Father,"— certainly in all respects as the Son
of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to
each substance in its own special property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else
but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach
respecting His two substances, saying, "who was made of the seed of David;"
Romans 1:3 in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. "Who was declared to be
the Son of God, according to the Spirit;" in which words He will be God, and the
Word— the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded,
but conjoined in One Person— Jesus, God and Man. Concerning Christ, indeed, I
defer what I have to say. (I remark here), that the property of each nature is
so wholly preserved, that the Spirit on the one hand did all things in Jesus
suitable to Itself, such as miracles, and mighty deeds, and wonders; and the
Flesh, on the other hand, exhibited the affections which belong to it. It was
hungry under the devil's temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan woman, wept over
Lazarus, was troubled even unto death, and at last actually died. If, however,
it was only a tertium quid, some composite essence formed out of the Two
substances, like the electrum (which we have mentioned), there would be no
distinct proofs apparent of either nature. But by a transfer of functions, the
Spirit would have done things to be done by the Flesh, and the Flesh such as are
effected by the Spirit; or else such things as are suited neither to the Flesh
nor to the Spirit, but confusedly of some third character.

________________________________
From: stevku <stevku@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 6:52:13 PM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] John 17:3 again (was: Re: Separation of Person
and Nature...).

 
> Hi Steve,
>
> No personal offense intended by the following, but, for the sake of
O/orthodoxy, here goes:
>
> "If anyone does not confess that there are TWO BEGETTINGS OF GOD the Word, one
BEFORE AGES, FROM THE FATHER, timelessly and incorporeally, the other in the
last days, the begetting of the SAME PERSON, who came down from heaven and was
made flesh of the Holy and Glorious GOD-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, and was
born of her, let him be anathema." -.Constantinople II, A.D. 553 (emphasis
mine).
>
> God bless,
> Jason

No offense taken. I agree with this. The Word born out of God became flesh and
was born of Mary.

In Christ,
Steve
 
Hi Steve,
 
Excellent.  Thanks for the clarification; for although our modes of expression
are different  in speaking of Christ, our meaning may not be that far apart. 
May I ask you what you mean when you say that "with qualification, Jesus on
earth is not God, but the Son of God"?  What is this qualification?
 
God bless
 
 
--- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, jason homey <banjomaster1@ ...>
wrote:
> [37890]
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> No personal offense intended by the following, but, for the sake of
O/orthodoxy, here goes:
>
> "If anyone does not confess that there are TWO BEGETTINGS OF GOD the Word, one
BEFORE AGES, FROM THE FATHER, timelessly and incorporeally, the other in the
last days, the begetting of the SAME PERSON, who came down from heaven and was
made flesh of the Holy and Glorious GOD-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, and was
born of her, let him be anathema." -.Constantinople II, A.D. 553 (emphasis
mine).
>
> God bless,
>
> Jason>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: stevku <stevku@...>
> To: evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com
> Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:14:41 PM
> Subject: [evangelicals_ and_jws] John 17:3 again (was: Re: Separation of
Person and Nature...).
>
>  
> Hi Paul.
>
> My thought on John 17:3 is that, with qualification, Jesus on earth is not God
but the Son of God, the kin-related Son of God, and would call God His only true
God, and Mary His only true mother.
>
> Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
>
> In Luke 1:35 Jesus was particularly called the Son of God because God rather
than a man was His Father, and Mary was His mother. God had a Son in the human
realm for the first time. God performed a miracle in Mary.
>
> Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
>
> I see that the Word became fully human when He was born of Mary. As a human He
had the trappings of a man. As a man He had to be given power and authority from
God. This explains your scriptures concerning that Jesus had to receive things
from God.
>
> I see it like when a pure brown eyed person marries a blue eyed person, the
offspring is fully brown eyed, having the dominant brown eyed trait, but carries
the recessive blue eyed trait. Jesus is fully human but God is nonetheless part
of who He is. And wherever God is, all of God is. Jesus is both God and man.
>
> In Christ,
> Steve
>
> --- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, "standardbearer" <pgr_drifter@
...> wrote:







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Donn,

Thanks for the link.  May I ask what you see as being the primary significance
of the historical data presented here?   I, as you probably suspect
anyways, view the various early attempts at formulating Christological doctrine,
together with the controversies which these inevitibly (and ultimately,
profitably) engendered, when taken together as a whole, as definitely pointing
in the direction of (or, naturally 'gravitating' towards) Chalcedon and beyond
(Constantinople II and III), and most definitely not pointing in the direction
of the JW 'spirit being to human being to re-created spirit being' concept. 
Indeed, is there even so much as one ancient ecclesiastical writer who held to
anything resembling the JW view on the relation of the two natures to one
another?

Also, what do you make of the alleged 'biblical solution' to the 'Christological
problem' presented in the link?  I, for one, am having difficulty seeing where
the author is coming from on this one: for instance: either Christ has a human
spirit or he does not: how can it be both yes and no?  Either a human spirit is
an essential component of a human nature or it is not.  Either Christ's humanity
was complete or it was not complete.  Perhaps you can make sense of what the
author is trying to say better than I can.

God bless,

Jason



________________________________
From: donn reese <tlkreese@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 5:17:10 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Should You Believe It?

 
Barry, Jason-

How many Jesus' (conceptually) were there- http://fromdeathtol ife.org/christor
y/christ1b. html
An historical refresher course.

Regards

Donn

____________ _________ _________ __
From: Barry H. <nebarry@verizon. net>
To: evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 4:44:41 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_ and_jws] Re: Should You Believe It?

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "jason homey" <banjomaster1@ yahoo.com>
To: <evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_ and_jws] Re: Should You Believe It?

>>I was reading Novatian recently, and I remembered what you had said, and I
>>thought that you just might find it to be of interest that essentially the
>>same point that you make here was made by him (against the Adoptianist
>>Monarchians) some 1700 + years ago!<<

Nice to know that people in that time period could correctly read their
Greek New Testaments.. . :)

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair State University
http://www.montclair.edu/
Classics & Bible Instructor @ The American Academy
http://theamericanacademy.net

http://my.opera. com/barryhofstet ter/blog

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Hi Steve,
>
> No personal offense intended by the following, but, for the sake of
O/orthodoxy, here goes:
>
> "If anyone does not confess that there are TWO BEGETTINGS OF GOD the Word, one
BEFORE AGES, FROM THE FATHER, timelessly and incorporeally, the other in the
last days, the begetting of the SAME PERSON, who came down from heaven and was
made flesh of the Holy and Glorious GOD-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, and was
born of her, let him be anathema." -.Constantinople II, A.D. 553 (emphasis
mine).
>
> God bless,
> Jason

No offense taken.  I agree with this.  The Word born out of God became flesh and
was born of Mary.

In Christ,
Steve

--- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, jason homey <banjomaster1@...>
wrote:
> [37890]
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> No personal offense intended by the following, but, for the sake of
O/orthodoxy, here goes:
>
> "If anyone does not confess that there are TWO BEGETTINGS OF GOD the Word, one
BEFORE AGES, FROM THE FATHER, timelessly and incorporeally, the other in the
last days, the begetting of the SAME PERSON, who came down from heaven and was
made flesh of the Holy and Glorious GOD-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, and was
born of her, let him be anathema." -.Constantinople II, A.D. 553 (emphasis
mine).
>
> God bless,
>
> Jason>
> ________________________________
> From: stevku <stevku@...>
> To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:14:41 PM
> Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] John 17:3 again (was: Re: Separation of Person
and Nature...).
>
>  
> Hi Paul.
>
> My thought on John 17:3 is that, with qualification, Jesus on earth is not God
but the Son of God, the kin-related Son of God, and would call God His only true
God, and Mary His only true mother.
>
> Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
>
> In Luke 1:35 Jesus was particularly called the Son of God because God rather
than a man was His Father, and Mary was His mother. God had a Son in the human
realm for the first time. God performed a miracle in Mary.
>
> Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
>
> I see that the Word became fully human when He was born of Mary. As a human He
had the trappings of a man. As a man He had to be given power and authority from
God. This explains your scriptures concerning that Jesus had to receive things
from God.
>
> I see it like when a pure brown eyed person marries a blue eyed person, the
offspring is fully brown eyed, having the dominant brown eyed trait, but carries
the recessive blue eyed trait. Jesus is fully human but God is nonetheless part
of who He is. And wherever God is, all of God is. Jesus is both God and man.
>
> In Christ,
> Steve
>
> --- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, "standardbearer" <pgr_drifter@
...> wrote:

Barry, Jason-

How many Jesus' (conceptually) were there-
http://fromdeathtolife.org/christory/christ1b.html
An historical refresher course.

Regards

Donn




________________________________
From: Barry H. <nebarry@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 4:44:41 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Should You Believe It?

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "jason homey" <banjomaster1@ yahoo.com>
To: <evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_ and_jws] Re: Should You Believe It?

>>I was reading Novatian recently, and I remembered what you had said, and I
>>thought that you just might find it to be of interest that essentially the
>>same point that you make here was made by him (against the Adoptianist
>>Monarchians) some 1700 + years ago!<<

Nice to know that people in that time period could correctly read their
Greek New Testaments.. . :)

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair State University
http://www.montclair.edu/
Classics & Bible Instructor @ The American Academy
http://theamericanacademy.net

http://my.opera. com/barryhofstet ter/blog







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jason homey" <banjomaster1@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Should You Believe It?







>>I was reading Novatian recently, and I remembered what you had said, and I
>>thought that you just might find it to be of interest that essentially the
>>same point that you make here was made by him (against the Adoptianist
>>Monarchians) some 1700 + years ago!<<

Nice to know that people in that time period could correctly read their
Greek New Testaments...  :)

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair State University
http://www.montclair.edu/
Classics & Bible Instructor @ The American Academy
http://theamericanacademy.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog

Hi Steve,

No personal offense intended by the following, but, for the sake of
O/orthodoxy, here goes:

"If anyone does not confess that there are TWO BEGETTINGS OF GOD the Word, one
BEFORE AGES, FROM THE FATHER, timelessly and incorporeally, the other in the
last days, the begetting of the SAME PERSON, who came down from heaven and was
made flesh of the Holy and Glorious GOD-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, and was
born of her, let him be anathema." -.Constantinople II, A.D. 553 (emphasis
mine).

God bless,

Jason




________________________________
From: stevku <stevku@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:14:41 PM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] John 17:3 again (was: Re: Separation of Person
and Nature...).

 
Hi Paul.

My thought on John 17:3 is that, with qualification, Jesus on earth is not God
but the Son of God, the kin-related Son of God, and would call God His only true
God, and Mary His only true mother.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

In Luke 1:35 Jesus was particularly called the Son of God because God rather
than a man was His Father, and Mary was His mother. God had a Son in the human
realm for the first time. God performed a miracle in Mary.

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I see that the Word became fully human when He was born of Mary. As a human He
had the trappings of a man. As a man He had to be given power and authority from
God. This explains your scriptures concerning that Jesus had to receive things
from God.

I see it like when a pure brown eyed person marries a blue eyed person, the
offspring is fully brown eyed, having the dominant brown eyed trait, but carries
the recessive blue eyed trait. Jesus is fully human but God is nonetheless part
of who He is. And wherever God is, all of God is. Jesus is both God and man.

In Christ,
Steve

--- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, "standardbearer" <pgr_drifter@
...> wrote:
> [37880]
>
> Rob, if I call you the "only true owner of this group", even if there are
others who are moderators and who, for all appearances of the other members,
appear to be like the owner or an owner (if, for example, you are something of
an absentee owner), my statement shows that you and you alone are the only true
owner of this group.
>
> In fact, I have no idea at all if YOU are the actual owner of this group. It
could easily have been started by someone else entirely and that person could
still be the "only true owner" of this group. But, for appearances sake, you
seem to be the owner of this group.
>
> Jesus said to his Father, "that they may know you, the only true God" and
nothing other than the Father is connected to that statement. Jesus was speaking
directly to his Father when he said this and he started his prayer with
"Father".
>
> I've already posted a multitude of Scriptures which any reasonable person
would conclude proves Jesus is not God.
>
> "we know what we worship" "the Father" "God" John 4
>
> "and was heard because of his godly fear" Hebrews 5
>
> "yet to us, there is one God, the Father" 1 Corinthians 8:6
>
> "I was taught" "commanded" by "the Father" John 8, 12
>
> "You gave them to me" "All authority has been given to me" J0hn 17, Matthew 28
>
> "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than
Your companions." (Hebrews 1)
>
> Honestly, I saw that I was still a member of this group called "evangelicals_
and_jws" and thought that I would take a look. I do not know if "Roy" is a
Jehovah's Witness or not, but I do not see any Jehovah's Witnesses posting here.
Maybe they simply got as tired of trying to reason with others here as I am now.
Yes, tired. Tired of wasting so much time responding to nonsense posted by
Jason. Tired of wasting any time on a guy named Barry who could only respond
with "Two different persons, one God." (Wow! How convincing! Please!)
>
> I certainly didn't start posting here so that I could be sucked into
enormously time-consuming "debates" and I'm done with Jason. I'm sure I'm done
with Barry. I'll see if there's anyone who's reasonable (if such a person still
posts here) and talk with him/her. I really have no obligation to do so.
>
> Have a good night, Rob.
>
> Paul




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

________________________________
From: Barry <nebarry@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, September 26, 2009 4:12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Should You Believe It?

 
Hi Barry,
 
Awile ago, you said in response to the JW argument from John 17:3 and 1 Cor.
8:6:


"It helps, actually, to emphasize what is syntactically emphasized in both
verses, Note the strategic placement of the word "and" (Grk., καί, KAI) and
the balanced, parallel nature of the clauses (evident even in good English
translations) . Jesus Christ is in fact revealed to be on equal footing (so
to speak), with God the Father."
 
I was reading Novatian recently, and I remembered what you had said, and I
thought that you just might find it to be of interest that essentially the
same point that you make here was made by him (against the Adoptianist
Monarchians) some 1700 + years ago!
 
"If Christ was only man, wherefore did He lay down for us such a rule of
believing as that in which He said, And this is life eternal, that they should
know You, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent? Had He
not wished that He also should be understood to be God, why did He add, And
Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, except because He wished to be received as God
also? Because if He had not wished to be understood to be God, He would have
added, And the man Jesus Christ, whom You have sent; but, in fact, He neither
added this, nor did Christ deliver Himself to us as than only, but associated
Himself with God, as He wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God
also, as He is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on
the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on Him whom He has sent, Jesus
Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked Himself to the
Father had He not wished to be
  understood to be God also: for He would have separated Himself from Him had He
not wished to be understood to be God. He would have placed Himself among men
only, had He known Himself to be only man; nor would He have linked Himself with
God had He not known Himself to be God also. But in this case He is silent about
His being man, because no one doubts His being man, and with reason links
Himself to God, that He might establish the formula of His divinity for those
who should believe."
 
 
God bless,
 
Jason





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To all,

In addition to the many NT passages which Rob has cited which clearly show that
Christ is the rightful object of prayer, I would like to add that there are
numerous places in the OT which demonstrate the same: e.g., Gen. 48:15,16: for,
when one and the same person is called both God and Angel, who else can this
possibly be other than Christ?;  Pss. 47 & 68: for, when God is said to have
ascended (47:5; 68:18), and thereby become king over the nations (Ps.
47:8), once again, how can it not be clear that the person spoken of is not the
Father, but is rather Christ?  Cf. Eph. 4:8-10.


God bless,


Jason



________________________________
From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 18, 2009 9:48:57 PM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Greg Stafford on praying to Jesus

 
Dear friends,

My second blog entry on the third edition of Greg Stafford's book _Jehovah's
Witnesses Defended_ focuses on his admission that it is proper to pray to Jesus:

http://www.reclaimi ngthemind. org/blog/ 2009/10/greg- stafford- on-praying-
to-jesus/

In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear friends,

My second blog entry on the third edition of Greg Stafford's book _Jehovah's
Witnesses Defended_ focuses on his admission that it is proper to pray to Jesus:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/greg-stafford-on-praying-to-jesus/

In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman

This discussion group offers an opportunity for respectful, intelligent
discussion of the theological differences between those who espouse evangelical
theology and those who espouse Jehovah's Witness theology. With the exception of
posts from the moderators and a few others (at the List Owner's discretion), all
posts are moderated. Anyone, including non-members, can submit posts, but only
list members can receive posts by email or download files.

Please note the following rules:

* Standard rules of Netiquette apply.

* Topics must be theological and focused on differences between JWs and
evangelicals. Thus, topics about differences among evangelicals on secondary
issues (tongues, predestination, the rapture, etc.) are not discussed here. See
"What Evangelicals Believe" located in the Files section of this Group. JW
beliefs for our purposes are those taught in the publications of the Watchtower
Societies. Examples of appropriate topics include the following:

-> the Trinity vs. JW views on God, Christ, and holy spirit

-> the Incarnation (pro and con)

-> the Atonement (ransom doctrine, etc.)

-> salvation, grace, faith, and works

-> the nature of the resurrection of Jesus (physical or not?) and the
resurrection of believers

-> the church (e.g., whether there are two classes of the redeemed,
the 144,000 and the Great Crowd; evangelical vs. JW views on human
religious authority in Christian doctrine, practice, and
interpretation of Scripture)

-> the constitution of human nature (differences over the existence of
a soul distinct from the body that exists after death, etc.)

-> the nature of eternal punishment

-> the legitimacy of practices forbidden by JWs but accepted by many
or most evangelicals (various celebrations, blood transfusions,
serving in the military or in political office, the use of the cross
as a religious symbol, etc.)

-> Persons who are neither evangelicals nor JWs may submit posts. Former JWs are
advised not to advertise this fact.

* Bald assertions or mere statements of opinion are not welcome. We are
interested in your reasons for holding the view that you do.

* Posts regarding the moral failures of persons on either side (JW or
evangelical) are not permitted. Posts on the moral *teachings* of either side
are permitted.

* Posts attacking list members' character are not permitted.

* Members may not send harrassing or otherwise unwelcome private emails to one
another.

* Moderators reserve the right to call an end to a thread (discussion topic)
when in their judgment the exchange is not advancing in a fruitful way.

* Try to keep your posts to five a day. Exceeding this number frequently, or
flagrantly, will be considered a list violation.

* Cut unneeded text from previous posts at the bottom of your post.

All decisions regarding the operation of this list are at the discretion of the
moderators.

In Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
List Owner

This is an automated message that will go out every two weeks as a "reminder
message". Please keep in mind that we have set a "5 post limit" per day. This
makes it easier for us, the moderators, to be able to make sure that the group
is running as smoothly as possible. This message goes out to the group as a
whole and is not singling anyone out. So please help us out by keeping to the "5
post limit" per day. Exceptions may be approved by the moderators at their
discretion. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

The Moderators

Hi Paul,

No, you cannot call him "the only true owner" or "the only true moderator", not
could you, for example, refer to a policeman as "the only true police officer"
or even "the only police offer".

You could, however, refer to Barack Obama as "the only President of the US" or
to Queen Elizabeth as "the only Queen of England" as there is only one President
of the US and one King or Queen of England (at any one time).

Why do you want to give a different meaning to the word "only" than its proper
meaning.

Dan.

--- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "standardbearer" <pgr_drifter@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Rob, if I call you the "only true owner of this group", even if there
> are others who are moderators and who, for all appearances of the other
> members, appear to be like the owner or an owner (if, for example, you
> are something of an absentee owner), my statement shows that you and you
> alone are the only true owner of this group.
>
> In fact, I have no idea at all if YOU are the actual owner of this
> group. It could easily have been started by someone else entirely and
> that person could still be the "only true owner" of this group.  But,
> for appearances sake, you seem to be the owner of this group.
>
> Jesus said to his Father, "that they may know you, the only true God"
> and nothing other than the Father is connected to that statement.  Jesus
> was speaking directly to his Father when he said this and he started his
> prayer with "Father".
>
> I've already posted a multitude of Scriptures which any reasonable
> person would conclude proves Jesus is not God.
>
> "we know what we worship" "the Father" "God"  John 4
>
> "and was heard because of his godly fear"   Hebrews 5
>
> "yet to us, there is one God, the Father" 1 Corinthians 8:6
>
> "I was taught" "commanded" by "the Father"   John 8, 12
>
> "You gave them to me"  "All authority has been given to me" J0hn 17,
> Matthew 28
>
> "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more
> than Your companions." (Hebrews 1)
>
> Honestly, I saw that I was still a member of this group called
> "evangelicals_and_jws" and thought that I would take a look.    I do not
> know if "Roy" is a Jehovah's Witness or not, but I do not see any
> Jehovah's Witnesses posting here.   Maybe they simply got as tired of
> trying to reason with others here as I am now.   Yes, tired.   Tired of
> wasting so much time responding to nonsense posted by Jason.   Tired of
> wasting any time on a guy named Barry who could only respond with "Two
> different persons, one God." (Wow! How convincing!   Please!)
>
> I certainly didn't start posting here so that I could be sucked into
> enormously time-consuming "debates" and I'm done with Jason.  I'm sure
> I'm done with Barry.   I'll see if there's anyone who's reasonable (if
> such a person still posts here) and talk with him/her.   I really have
> no obligation to do so.
>
> Have a good night, Rob.
>
>            Paul
>
>
> --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "Rob"
> <faithhasitsreasons@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > If I may chime in here, Jason is absolutely correct. John 17:3 does
> not contradict the Trinity because it affirms that there is only one
> true God (which Trinitarianism affirms) and that the Father is that God
> (which we also affirm). It says that the Father is the-only-true-God,
> not that the Father alone is the-true-God. In fact, I'll put it this
> way: If the Father is NOT the only true God, then the doctrine of the
> Trinity is false! A statement that is necessary to the doctrine cannot
> at the same time contradict that doctrine.
> >
> > In Christ's service,
> > Rob Bowman
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "standardbearer"
> pgr_drifter@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason said:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > My disagreement with you about what John 17:3 means and does not
> mean
> > > has nothing at all to do with the definition of the word 'only', but
> > > rather 'only' with the question of which words in John 17:3 are
> modified
> > > by the word 'only' and which words are not. As I read the phrase in
> > > question, "that they may know you, the only true God" it seems quite
> > > plain to me that the word 'only' modifies ONLY the words 'true God',
> > > whereas you appear to be reading the phrase as though the word
> 'only'
> > > somehow referred back to the word 'you'; i.e., you seem to be
> reading
> > > the phrase in question as though it read: "that they may know you,
> the
> > > only one who is the true God". Thus, whereas you read the text as
> > > though it stated that there is only one person who is the true God,
> and
> > > that the Father is that person, I read it simply as affirming that
> there
> > > is only one true God, and that the Father is that one and only true
> God;
> > > i.e., the phrase in question tells us nothing at all about whether
> or
> > > not there are other persons besides the Father who are ALSO that
> very
> > > same one and only true God that the Father is, but simply that there
> are
> > > not several true Gods, and that the Father is not one of several
> true
> > > Gods; thus, IF there are other persons besides the Father who are
> the
> > > true God, they would have to be one and the same true God as the
> Father,
> > > not 'additional' true Gods.
> > >
> > > For the sake of clarity, I will ask you: do you understand that I do
> NOT
> > > hold that the Father is one of three true Gods?
> > >
> > >
> > > God bless,
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > >
> > > Jason,
> > >
> > > The words that are modified by "only" are "true God". Jesus said,
> > > "that they may know you, the only true God".
> > >
> > > I suppose "common sense" can be thrown out when having a
> > > discussion with you, since you can't even fathom something as simple
> as
> > > "that they may know you, the only true God".
> > >
> > > I doubt that any further conversation between us could be
> > > fruitful, so I am discontinuing this discussion from this point
> forward.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> >
>

Hi Paul.

My thought on John 17:3 is that, with qualification, Jesus on earth is not God
but the Son of God, the kin-related Son of God, and would call God His only true
God, and Mary His only true mother.

Joh 17:3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

In Luke 1:35 Jesus was particularly called the Son of God because God rather
than a man was His Father, and Mary was His mother.  God had a Son in the human
realm for the first time.  God performed a miracle in Mary.

Luk 1:35  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I see that the Word became fully human when He was born of Mary.  As a human He
had the trappings of a man.  As a man He had to be given power and authority
from God.  This explains your scriptures concerning that Jesus had to receive
things from God.

I see it like when a pure brown eyed person marries a blue eyed person, the
offspring is fully brown eyed, having the dominant brown eyed trait, but carries
the recessive blue eyed trait.  Jesus is fully human but God is nonetheless part
of who He is.  And wherever God is, all of God is.  Jesus is both God and man.

In Christ,
Steve

--- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "standardbearer" <pgr_drifter@...>
wrote:
> [37880]
>
> Rob, if I call you the "only true owner of this group", even if there are
others who are moderators and who, for all appearances of the other members,
appear to be like the owner or an owner (if, for example, you are something of
an absentee owner), my statement shows that you and you alone are the only true
owner of this group.
>
> In fact, I have no idea at all if YOU are the actual owner of this group. It
could easily have been started by someone else entirely and that person could
still be the "only true owner" of this group.  But, for appearances sake, you
seem to be the owner of this group.
>
> Jesus said to his Father, "that they may know you, the only true God" and
nothing other than the Father is connected to that statement.  Jesus was
speaking directly to his Father when he said this and he started his prayer with
"Father".
>
> I've already posted a multitude of Scriptures which any reasonable person
would conclude proves Jesus is not God.
>
> "we know what we worship" "the Father" "God"  John 4
>
> "and was heard because of his godly fear"   Hebrews 5
>
> "yet to us, there is one God, the Father" 1 Corinthians 8:6
>
> "I was taught" "commanded" by "the Father"   John 8, 12
>
> "You gave them to me"  "All authority has been given to me" J0hn 17, Matthew
28
>
> "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than
Your companions." (Hebrews 1)
>
> Honestly, I saw that I was still a member of this group called
"evangelicals_and_jws" and thought that I would take a look.    I do not know if
"Roy" is a Jehovah's Witness or not, but I do not see any Jehovah's Witnesses
posting here.   Maybe they simply got as tired of trying to reason with others
here as I am now.   Yes, tired.   Tired of wasting so much time responding to
nonsense posted by Jason.   Tired of wasting any time on a guy named Barry who
could only respond with "Two different persons, one God." (Wow! How convincing!
Please!)
>
> I certainly didn't start posting here so that I could be sucked into
enormously time-consuming "debates" and I'm done with Jason.  I'm sure I'm done
with Barry.   I'll see if there's anyone who's reasonable (if such a person
still posts here) and talk with him/her.   I really have no obligation to do so.
>
> Have a good night, Rob.
>
>            Paul

All,

I have posted the first of what I anticipate will be several blog entries on
Greg Stafford's third edition of _Jehovah's Witnesses Defended_:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/greg-stafford-defends-jehovahs-wit\
nesses-from-the-margins/

In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman

________________________________
From: standardbearer <pgr_drifter@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:35:06 AM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Separation of Person and Nature in Foster's
Treatment of Phil. 2:6,7.

 

Jason:

"I note that you have avoided answering my questions; so I will ask
again: what happened to Jesus' 'spirit nature' when he 'gave it up'?
Was it annihilated? Yes or no. I'll include a couple more options:
Was it 'changed' into a different nature? Yes or no. Or, did it
continue to exist somewhere in heaven separated from the Person of
Jesus? Yes or no. If you answer, none of the above, then, I ask: what
other options could there possibly be in addition to these three?"

[Paul]

I in no way avoided your question.
 
[Jason]
You did indeed avoid it, and, as I can see, you are still doing so.  For, in the
above paragraph I asked you three very simple questions to which the answers are
a very simple yes or no.  So, where are your yesses and nos?
 
[Paul]
 
 I posted the Scripture which
clearly shows that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
and that those Christians who will inherit heavenly life will be
"changed". Since "flesh and blood" (including Jesus' human body)
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but will be changed, it is clear that
they are "changed" into a spirit being which is able to exist in heaven.

[Jason]
 
And I showed you that the expression 'flesh and blood' in 1 Cor. 15:50 does not
refer to the human body per se, but to the human body in its present
corruptible, perishable, weak, and dishonourable condition.  The 'change' which
St. Paul speaks of does not involve any replacement of the human body with a
non-human body, but is rather simply a changing of the human body from its
present corruptible, perishable, mortal, weak, and dishonourable condition to a
condition of incorruptibility, imperishability, immortality, power and glory. 
If you are still having difficulty seeing this, then let me ask you: what is the
referent of 'it' in 1 Cor. 15:42-44?
 
[Paul]
  
I am sorry that you did not like the answer, but that is your problem if
you do not accept the Scriptures, but would rather assume things that
are never spoken about in the Scriptures. 
[Jason]
 
Quite the contrary!  It is you who is the one here who is preferring to assume
things that are never spoken about in the Scriptures, and then reading these
things into the Scriptures.  For, St. Paul just simply does NOT say in 1 Cor.
15  that human beings will be changed into spirit beings.  Nor is there any
biblical basis for your assumption that 'inherit the kingdom of God' = 'live in
heaven instead of on earth'.  Indeed, given the Witness belief that not all
those who are eventually saved will be changed into spirit beings, what do you
do with Matt. 25:31-46 which presents only two final states, namely, either
inheriting the kingdom (vs. 34), or departing into eternal fire (vs. 41)? 
Observe here that inheriting the kingdom and receiving eternal life are equated
with one another here (vss. 34 and 46). 
 
[Paul]
 
 For Clearly, if Jesus existed in
heaven and then, by his Father's will, became a human, he was "changed"
from being a spirit being in heaven into a human.
 
[Jason]
 
This does not follow at all.  For, as I pointed out to you previously, the word
'became' need not be taken as implying any ceasing to be what the person or
thing  in question was prior to its becoming something else.  And as you have
offered no reason whatsoever why one and the same person cannot have two natures
simultaneously, you have no basis whatsoever for maintaining that in order for a
spirit person come to have a human nature (and thus 'become' human), he must
first 'give up' his spirit nature.  This is nothing but pure assumption on your
part.
 
[Paul]
 
After his death, his
Father raised him from the dead as a spirit being and he no longer
existed as a human being.

 
[Jason]
 
The Scriptures nowhere teach this.  Please take note that 1 Pet. 3:18 does not
say 'as a spirit' and that 1 Cor. 15:45 does not specify WHEN the Last Adam
became a life-giving spirit; furthermore, as I already pointed out, a man can
become a spirit while still remaining a man (1 Cor. 6:17).  And, again, as I
also pointed out previously, the Scriptures clearly show that Jesus was and is
STILL man after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:21,22,47-49; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:5-9;
Dan. 7:13,14)
 
 Jason:

"Bringing the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 into the
discussion accomplishes nothing towards answering my questions; for,
much the same difficulties accompany the Witness teachings concerning
the resurrection as the ones which accompany the Witness teachings
concerning the two natures of Christ. If you check back into the
archives you will find that there was a rather indepth discussion a
while ago on the forum as to whether or not the Witness manner of
conceptualizing the resurrection actually allows for any degree of real
personal continuity between the 'person' who dies and the 'person' who
comes into being at the time of the 'resurrection' ."

[Paul]

Why would I have any interest in going through the archives? It has
nothing to do with today's discussion.

 
[Jason]
 
It most certainly does; for you are attempting to use the Witness understanding
of the resurrection as though it provided the answers to my question as to how a
person can lose his nature and yet still remain the same person.
 
Jason:

"The crucial questions for Witnesses to answer here are: What
constitutes a personal identity? What is the relation between person
and nature? What does the distinction between person and nature consist
in?"
 
[Paul]


No. The crucial questions are: Do you accept what the Bible teaches or
are you much more enamored by the writings of men.
 
[Jason]
 
Well, then, since you insist on automatically equating your interpretation of
the Bible with 'what the Bible teaches', I will humour you by rephrasing the
questions:
According to the Bible, what constitutes a personal identity?
According to the Bible, what is the relation between person and nature?
According to the Bible, what does the distinction between person and nature
consist in?
 
[Paul]
 
 Jesus calls his
Father "the only true God". Paul writes that there is only "one God,
the Father".
 
[Jesus]
 
I believe that the Father is the only true God and that there only one God, the
Father.  How many times do I have to repeat myself on these points before you
will understand that I do not believe that the Father is either one of several
true Gods or is merely a 'part' or 'portion' of the one and only God?
 
[Paul]
 
You would rather question about how a "person" who is a
spirit can become a human when you cannot even answer how Christians,
who are human, are changed so that they can inherit heavenly life when
"flesh and blood" cannot inherit heavenly life. What is YOUR theory on
that? How are those Christians "changed"?

 
[Jason]
 
From St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15, taken together with what he says elsewhere
in his letters, I have already explained to you what the change consists in and
does not consist in; the difference between my explanation and yours lies in the
fact that whereas mine clearly preserves personal continuity, for it involves no
'loss' of natures, yours raises the question as to whether personal identity is
or is not preserved, which, of course, in turn raises the question as to whether
or not your explanation is compatible with the teaching of the Bible as a whole.
 
Jason:

"Yet, it is precisely these types of questions which I find the
Witnesses to give ambiguous answers to; yet clear answers to these
questions are absolutely necessary if the Witness presentation of the
doctrine of the resurrection is to be vindicated as being coherent and
internally consistent."

Tell me, Jason, how did Jehovah God "form the man from the dust of the
earth", "breathe the breath of life into the man", so that "the man
became a living soul"?
 
[Jason]
 
By doing precisely that!   human body + human spirit = living human being. 
human body - human spirit = dead human being. 
 
[Paul]
 
 Tell me, how did the Almighty create the first
man?
 
[Jason]
 
Gen. 2:7
 
[Paul]
 
Will you tell me that if a man dies, is buried, and his body is
completely decomposed, that Jehovah God the Almighty cannot "remember"
the details of that man and recreate him, complete with his intelligence
and memory?
 
[Jason]
 
It does not follow from the fact that God can (and will) do something that the
Witness explanations of how He does it are logically compatible with the actual
accomplishment of that which it is said that God can and will do.  For example,
it does not follow from the fact that God can draw a triangle on a piece of
paper, that He can do so by drawing two parallel lines. 
 
[Paul]
 
 Will you tell me that, though the Holy Scriptures say
that "nothing is impossible with God", that it IS impossible for God to
bring a man who died several millenia ago back to life?

 
[Jason]
 
No.  Of course not!  But what I will tell you is that the Witness explanations
of HOW God does this are incompatible with the affirmation that He does indeed
do this.  Indeed, the Witness account of the alleged means and processes whereby
God 'recreates' something or someone logically entails the result not that the
thing or person which previously ceased to exist actually comes back into
existence, but at the very most, that something or someone exactly like the
thing or person that previously ceased to exist comes into existence.  In other
words, on the Witness account of what the process of 'recreation' supposedly
consists in, the alleged  'recreation' turns out to be not a 'recreation' at
all, but, rather, simply nothing more than a mere 'copy' or 'duplicate' of
something or someone which previously ceased to exist, and which, therefore, by
the consequences logically entailed by the Witness account, carries on ceasing
to exist even
  after its alleged 'recreation'.
 
[Paul]
 
Job 14:13 " Oh, that You would hide me in the grave, That You would
conceal me until Your wrath is past, That You would appoint me a set
time, and remember me! 14 If a man dies, shall he live [again?] All
the days of my hard service I will wait, Till my change comes. 15 You
shall call, and I will answer You; You shall desire the work of Your
hands.

Perhaps if you weren't so caught up in the study of the writing of men,
but rather the writings of God, you would understand the simplest of
concepts. Clearly, you do not.

 
[Jason]
 
It is rather your views of the resurrection, not mine, which are based on the
writings of men instead of the writings of God.  For, the Witness accounts
of what resurrection actually consists in and does not consist in is  found
nowhere at all in the Scriptures. 

 
Jason:

"The Orthodox view is that person and nature are related to one another
and distinguished from one another in that nature is simply the content
of the person, and the person is simply the concrete existence of the
nature; but these definitions surely will not work for the Witnesses as
they preclude the possibility of a person 'losing' his nature and yet
still remaining the same person that he was prior to 'losing' his
nature. Indeed, it is not at all clear what possible relation between
person and nature could be posited by Witnesses that would be BOTH
consistent with their views on the resurrection and consistent with
their apparent understanding that person and nature are related in such
a manner to one another that it is logically impossible for there to be
such a thing as one nature in three persons simultaneously, or such a
thing as one person in two natures simultaneously, inasmuch as this
latter commitment would seem to allow for far less of a real distinction
between person and nature than that which is posited by the orthodox
view."
 
[Paul]


All just such nonsense, people without any understanding writing volumes
upon volumes in order to try to explain the things they cannot
understand, all because they prefer misunderstanding.
 
[Jason]
 
Good description of the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses on the subjects of the
Resurrection, the Trinity, and the Incarnation!
 
[Paul]
 
 For example, the
"Orthodox" religions believe that there is an "immortal soul", something
immaterial, yet still the "person" which somehow survives the death of
the physical body.
 
[Jason]
 
Not quite.  Do you really wish to understand accurately what the Orthodox
teaching actually is on this subject, or do you 'prefer misunderstanding'?
 
[Paul]
 
 This belief goes well back before the birth of
Christ, but only among those nations which did not have the truth. The
nation of Israel had no such belief, just as the nation of Israel had no
such trinity belief.

[Jason]
 
Says who?  You?
 
[Paul]
 
But, you would expect those who understand the Holy Scriptures to try to
explain something to you within the context of YOUR beliefs, which uses
terms and definitions created by those who do not understand the
Scriptures.

 
[Jason]
 
The two key terms here are 'nature' and 'person', terms which you yourself also
use in your articulations of your teachings about God, Christ, man, the
Resurrection, etc.  The difference here is that whereas my usage of the
terms has biblical basis, yours does not.  For instance, the Scriptures speak of
the Divine Nature (2 Pet. 1:4) and they speak of human nature (James 3:7,
Gk); they, however, nowhere speak of 'spirit nature'.
 
[Paul]
 
The very beginning of the discussion between you and I dealt with
simplicity. Yet, you stray well beyond simplicity into a realm of
confusion from which you clearly cannot escape. For, if you could
possibly understand the simplest of things, "you, the only true God",
"one God, the Father", then you could begin to scrap the false teachings
of men with no understanding.
 
[Jason]
 
It is rather your teachings which stray well beyond simplicity into a realm of
confusion from which you clearly cannot escape.
 
Consider this comparison of our views about the 'history' of Christ's person
relative to His natures: 
The Orthodox view:
1) In eternity, Christ was begotten by God and is therefore a Divine Person
having the Divine Nature
2) In time, this same Divine Person, Christ, was born of the Virgin Mary, and,
therefore, also has a human nature.
 
Your view:
 
1) Christ did not yet exist
 
2) Christ, a spirit person having a spirit nature, was created by God
 
3) God caused Christ's spirit nature to cease to exist; with the result that
Christ ceased being a spirit person
 
4) God caused a human person with a human nature came into existence who was the
same person as Christ, the spirit person which ceased being a spirit person
5) After Christ died, God caused Christ's human nature to cease to exist; with
the result that Christ ceased being a human person
 
6) God caused a spirit person with a spirit nature to come into existence who
was the same person as Christ, the human person who ceased being a human person.
 
[Paul]
 
  But, let me add to your problem:

1 Timothy 2:5 For [there is] one God and one Mediator between God and
men, [the] Man Christ Jesus

There's God and there's men. And, then there's a mediator between God
and men. Although I know that God is the Father and only the Father,
this doesn't specifically say "the Father", it says "God". If you are
a trinitarian, how do you explain this? Do you say that God is "the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"? If so, then you say that
between "the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit" and men, there is "the
Son". But, how could the Son be between himself and men? If you say
that "God" in this instance is only "the Father", why is not "the Son
and the Holy Spirit" part of God?

[Jason]
 
No problem at all!  It is rather quite simple:  Christ is the one mediator
between God and men for the very reason that He is BOTH God and man, i.e., He
has the nature of God and the nature of men, and thus, in this sense, occupies
the 'middle position' between God and men..
 
[Paul]
 
Jehovah God created all things "through" his Son, but the Son was
Jehovah's first creation, the only creation of God that he directly
created. By creating everything else through his Son, Jesus was the
"mediator" between God and his creation.
 
[Jason]
 
1 Tim. 2:5 does not say mediator between God and his creation, but rather,
mediator between God and men; for, it is not the creation of all things through
the Son that is under discussion in the context of this verse, but rather, the
redemption of man through 'the man Christ Jesus'.  
 
[Paul]
 
 Those Ante-Niceaen Fathers
wrote that Jesus is the Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8:22-31 and that he
was Jehovah's first "creation".

[Jason]
 
From Prov. 8:22-31, the ante-Nicene Fathers deduced the eternal generation of
the Son and the uttering of the Logos; not a single one of them held that this
passage teaches that the Son has his personal origin from the Father either in
time or by way of creation.
 
[Paul]
 
Proverbs 8:30 Then I was beside Him [as] a master craftsman; And I was
daily [His] delight, Rejoicing always before Him, 31 Rejoicing in His
inhabited world, And my delight [was] with the sons of men.

Jesus was "with" his Father, beside his Father, as a "master craftsman".
Yet, Jehovah, the Father, is the Creator, even as Jesus himself showed
in Matthew 19:4-6.

 
[Jason]
 
Jesus ACTIVELY created (Gen. 1:26; Heb. 1:10-12).   Thus, the word 'through' in
John 1:3; 1 Cor.. 8:6 and Col. 1:16 does not mean that Jesus was merely some
kind of PASSIVE 'instrument' used by God in creating all things, or merely some
kind of PASSIVE 'channel' through which God's creative energy simply 'flowed
through' analogously to the way that water flows through a pipe!   What do we
call one who creates?  'creator', right?  For, by definition, one who creates
something is the creator of that something.  If the language of Matt. 19:4
(which does not even specify the Person of the Father, btw) proves that God is
the Creator of Man; then by the same token, Gen. 1:26 proves that both God and
His Son are the Creator of Man.
   
[Paul]

 
You talk about "nature" and "concrete existence" of a person and
continue to try to confuse things.
 
[Jason]
 
Surely you understand what it means for something to have a concrete existence,
right?  Likewise, surely you understand what it means for something to be the
'content' of something else, right?  So, what is it that you find so confusing
about my statements regarding the relation between nature and person?
 
[Paul]
 
 Easily, Jehovah God the Almighty
can "change" a "flesh and blood" human into a spirit being, without that
"person" losing their personal identity, memories, beliefs, and
thoughts. You "speak" as though a person must necessarily lose
something if their "nature" (physical or spiritual) is changed. You
think that Jesus cannot still be Jesus if he becomes a human and no
longer has a spirit existence.
 
[Jason]
 
Given the fact that you list personal identity together with three abstractions,
coupled with the fact that you so divorce person from being to such an extent
that a 'person', as 'person', loses nothing at all in losing its nature, it is
now quite obvious to me that you are operating with a grossly
deficient understanding of what constitutes a personal identity; indeed, you
appear to be reducing personhood to the level of pure abstraction. 
However, lest I be assuming too much, let me make sure that I am understanding
you correctly here by asking you one simple question:  If person x has
identical memories, beliefs, and thoughts, etc., as those of person y, would
that fact all by itself automatically make person x and person y one and the
same 'person'?
 
[Paul]
  
Why do you think Jesus himself chose fishermen as apostles rather than
those educated religious leaders in Israel?

 
[Jason]
 
In order that it might be clearly manifested that the teaching of the Apostles
is of Divine origin and not merely the product of human ingenuity.  (Read 1 Cor.
1:18 - 4:7)  Besides, 'those educated religious leaders in Israel' were just as
unwilling as you appear to be - and many other Witnesses for that matter - to
attempt to understand anything that they could not readily and immediately
grasp.  (See John 8, for instance: I, for one, see a great deal of  resemblance
here  between the mentality of the religious leaders of the Jews and the
mentality of the religious leaders of the Witnesses.)
 
 
Jason:

"In the verses you quoted from 1 Cor. 15, St. Paul is speaking not of
change of nature, but only of change of condition of nature: for he
makes it sufficiently clear elsewhere that it is not one's nature which
exludes one from the kingdom of God, but rather, only one's sins, which
he elsewhere calls the works of the 'flesh' "

[Paul]

Again, that is false. Whereas being a willful sinner will keep one from
enjoying the fruits of God's blessings upon those he loves, when Paul
writes that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", he
directly afterwards states, twice, that "we will be changed". This
clearly suggests that someone other than the individual is changing them
("we"). While each individual can choose to remain in their sins or
choose to have faith, obey, and gain salvation, being "changed" " in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet" is something
done by the power of God on those true worshipers ("we") that Paul was
speaking of.  And, that "change" is in type of being, being changed
from a "flesh and blood" human into a spirit being who is able to exist
in heaven with Jehovah God. Again, you do not take everything into
context, including the timing of the change ("at the last trumpet")..
By your misunderstanding of these verses, one would have to assume,
then, that all Christians decide at a single moment to have true faith
and that being "at the last trumpet". Obviously, this is not meant by
Paul or by God, the true Author.

 
[Paul]
 
Why it is exactly that you so utterly fail to understand the point that I was
making I can't determine with certainty based upon your response; but I suspect
that it has something to do with a deficiency in your understanding of the
relation between mortality and sin.  Am I correct in thinking that your view of
this relation is one-sided: namely, that sin leads to death, but that our
mortal, corruptible condition does not lead to sin?  If so, then I suggest that
you read Rom. 7:22-25 and 1 Cor. 15:55-57 a bit more carefully. 
Do you really mean to assert that whereas God alone can deliver man from his
mortality and bodily corruption, man - simply just by 'choosing' it to be
so - has the power to deliver himself from bondage to sin?  If so, then, once
again I suggest that you read Rom. 7:22-25 and 1 Cor. 15:55-57 more carefully,
and understand that mortality, corruptibility, and sin are so inextricably bound
up with one another that man's final and ultimate deliverance from and victory
over the power of sin necessarily coincides with man's final and ultimate
delieverance from and victory over the power of death; and that it is God, not
man himself, who frees man from BOTH and gives man the victory over BOTH.
 
And once again, I repeat, St. Paul nowhere says that the 'change' consists in
men ceasing to be men and becoming 'spirit beings' instead.  Rather, as St. Paul
himself states, the change consists in men who are now mortal, corruptible,
perishable, weak and dishonourable becoming immortal, incorruptible,
imperishable, powerful and glorious, whereby they are granted ultimate and total
victory over BOTH death AND SIN, WHILE still remaining being MEN.  (1 Cor.
15:42-57)
 
Jason:

"Note: the Apostle does not say 'spirit bodies'; indeed, the very notion
of a 'spirit body', i.e., a body consisting of a substance called
'spirit', is utterly foreign to the Scriptures: the Scriptures
invariably
differentiate between 'spirit' and 'body'"

[Paul]

Please describe how there is an Almighty, yet invisible, God,
 
[Jason]
 
Tell me how it could possibly be otherwise!
 
[Paul]
 
 there are
angels who reside "in heaven", yet are invisible,
 
[Jason]
 
Seeing that the angels are of an immaterial and incorporeal nature, how could
they not be invisible by nature? 
 
[Paul]
 
 there are Christians
who are "kings and priests to God" with Jesus in heaven, yet are
invisible, and heaven itself is invisible.
 
[Jason]
 
That's your problem, not mine; for, unlike the Witnesses, I do not conceive of
heaven in either physical or quasi-physical terms, and I do not believe in the
existence of 'spirit bodies'.
 
[Paul]
 
 When you say "a body
consisting of a substance called 'spirit', is utterly foreign to the
Scriptures", you are correct.
 
[Jason]
 
Then, let me ask you: what is the definition of the term 'spirit body' if it is
not 'a body consisting of a substance called spirit'?
 
[Paul]
 
 The Scriptures do not try to explain the
"nature" of spirit persons.
 
[Jason]
 
Then, why have the Witnesses taken it upon themselves to attribute 'spirit
bodies' to spirit persons if we know nothing about the constitution of the
nature of spirit persons?
 
[Paul]
 
 But, clearly there is a distinction
between "flesh and blood" humans, which cannot inherit the kingdom of
God, where spirit persons do reside.
 
[Jason]
 
Where do you get this equation from: "the kingdom of God" = "heaven", or "the
kingdom of God" = "the place where spirit persons reside"?
 
[Paul]
 
By the way, "God is a Spirit".

 
[Jason]
 
A better rendering of John 4:24 would be "God is spirit"; compare 1 John 1:5:
'God is light'; 1 John 4:8: "God is love", none of which terms designate God in
His nature or essence, but rather, God in His attributes or energies.
 
[Paul]
 
It doesn't say that "God is Spiritual".
 
[Jason]
 
So you do, afterall, acknowledge that there is a distinction to be made between
'spirit' and 'spiritual'?  If so, then how on earth can it be consistent for you
to defend the Witness equation: "spiritual body" = "spirit body"?
 
[Paul]
 
 Is your life predicated on
trying to determine what type of "substance" a spirit person is made of,
or the fact that there are persons who exist as spirits who are
invisible to human eyes and who reside in a heaven which is also
invisible to human eyes? Are you trying to discover the physics which
can explain the physical composition of the Almighty, the Creator of all
that is physical? Perhaps he lives in an alternate universe? No,
your search through the misunderstandings of other non-believers will be
fruitless because you'll never have a satisfactory answer. Yet, those
whose eyes are "simple" will see the simple truth.
 
[Jason]
 
I am not asking you for a positive description of the substance of the angels,
nor for a positive definition of the Divine Essence; for the first is not
revealed, and the second is incomprehensible by nature.  All that I am asking
you for is a logically coherent, non-contradictory account of your doctrines
about God, Christ, man, and the resurrection.   How is that too much to ask?
 


Jason

"As the Apostle explains, the difference between physical and spiritual,
as it pertains to the bodies of men, is a difference between mortality,
corruptibility, weakness, etc. on the one hand, and immortality,
incorruptibility, power, glory, etc. which is a difference of condition
not of nature."

Not in 1 Corinthians 15:50-52. He is speaking to other true
worshipers, those who have been declared righteous because of their
faith. They, who will inherit heavenly life will be changed so that
they no longer have a "flesh and blood" human body, but become a spirit
which can live in heaven.

[Jason]
 
St. Paul does NOT say 'human body' in 1 Cor. 15:50; nor does he say in this
verse 'heavenly life' or 'heaven' or 'spirit'.  His terms are 'flesh and blood',
'kingdom of God', and 'perishable' vs. 'imperishable': when will you learn to
cease reading into the text things that just simply are not there, especially
when it is the case that, as I have shown, the Apostle's usage of either these
terms or of similar ones elsewhere in his writings, not only fails to support
the equations which you foist upon the text, but outright clashes with them?
 
 
Jason:

"Just as the first man did not cease being man when he 'became' a living
soul, so likewise, the second man, did not cease being man when He
'became' a life-giving spirit."

The man IS a living soul. This is why Jehovah could state that "the
soul that sins, it will die" in Ezekiel 18:4, 20. A living, BREATHING
human being is a living soul. There is no "immortal soul" which
survives the death of the physical human body, another pagan teaching by
men with no understanding of the truth (like pagan Greeks: Plato
anyone?)

 
[Paul]
 
You're getting way off topic here.  How can you fail to realize that my
statement to which you are responding here did not even so much as touch on the
question of what it is that the soul either is or is not, let alone, the
question of whether or not it is immortal?  Do you not see at all that my
statement had to do ONLY with what the word 'become' either implies or does not
imply regarding that of which it is predicated of when it occurs in statements
of the type found in 1 Cor. 15:45?  Nevertheless, since you said what you said,
I will point out to you that I agree that in those instances in which man is
spoken of as being a soul (in distinction from those instances in which man is
spoken of as having a soul), the word 'soul' designates the being of the person,
which includes the whole nature, and not just simply the immaterial part of the
nature of the person.  Consequently, by the same token, when the Last Adam, the
second man -
  who precisely as such is just as clearly 'man'  as what the First man, Adam was
- is spoken of as being a spirit, this designates the Being of the Last Adam,
Christ, which includes BOTH of His natures, and not just simply one of His
natures, much less, only a part of one of His natures.
 
Jason:

"The question arises on account of the fact that Witnesses appear to
teach that when the Word became flesh, His spirit nature ceased to exist
(once again, I ask: what happened to it to result in its ceasing to
exist: surely we both agree that things don't cease to exist without
something acting upon them so as to cuase them to cease to exist, don't
we?) But, if this be the case, how can the spirit nature which Jesus
now possesses be anything more than simply just a duplicate or a copy of
the spirit nature whcih he had previously possessed before it ceased to
exist?"
 
[Paul]

Yes, "something" acted upon it to cause it to cease to exist while Jesus
continued to exist as a human. I'll call that "something" Jehovah God.

 
[Jason]
 
Do you admit then that Jehovah God destroyed Jesus' spirit nature?
 
[Paul]
 
Jehovah God is the Almighty. Being "Almighty", it means he has power
to do anything as he wills it. By "anything", it truly means
"anything", including changing a tree into a frog, changing a bird into
a turtle, even creating an entire universe with billions of galaxies
containing billions of stars, out of nothing except his own power, and
then organizing them and creating a complete set of "physical laws" by
which they exist. A scientists strives to discover the "secrets" of
the universe, the most insignificant particles of "substance" that
somehow compose the rest of the physical universe and even when they get
very close, they don't realize that all things came out of God's
Almighty power. But, you wish to argue about "natures" and what
happened to "natures" when a "person" becomes another nature. You
discount God's power to create as he sees fit, as if the Almighty cannot
change an angel into a human and back into an angel if he wills it.
 
[Jason]
 
Can God change a tree into a frog without thereby changing the fundamental or
underlying IDENTITY of the tree in question, so that after the change of
nature, it still remains the same 'entity' that it was before its nature was
changed?  For, take note here that I have not called into question God's power
to change a spirit person into a human person.  Indeed, I have not called into
question God's power at all.  All that I have called into question is whether or
not it is logically coherent and non-contradictory to speak of a spirit person
being changed into a human person while remaining the same person, instead of
becoming a different person.   Are you now beginning to see the difference
here?   Surely you agree that God cannot draw a four-sided triangle, don't you? 
And that the reason for this is not due to any lack of power on the part of God,
but is rather due to what it means and does not mean for a triangle to be a
triangle, right?

 
[Paul]

How, please, did angels appear to Abraham as men, yet he recognized them
as angels from God, but were able to eat a feast that Abraham prepared
for them?
 
[Jason]
 
By assuming bodies that had the appearance of being human bodies.  As these
angels did not thereby 'give up' the natures which they have by virtue of their
being created spirits, this raises no difficulty whatsoever as to how these
angels could have remained the same persons that they were before they appeared
as men to Abraham, nor as to how Abraham could have correctly recognized them as
being angels from God. 
 
[Paul]
 
Was it not God's will that they visited Abraham?
 
[Jason]
 
Of course.
 
[Paul]
 
 Perhaps
YOU should explain how the Almighty CANNOT change Jesus into a human so
that there is no longer a "spirit nature" of Jesus still in existence.
But, you can't. You think Jesus is God, though the Scriptures disagree
with you. Jesus disagrees with you when he called his Father "the only
true God". Therefore, you will likely never be able to understand
God's power and what he can will into existence.

 
[Jason]
 
Can God change Himself into a human so that there is no longer any Divine
Nature?  If you say yes, then I point out to you that this would necessarily
entail there no longer being any Supreme Being, which is nothing other than to
say that God Himself would no longer exist, right?  Can God annihilate Himself? 
Can God choose to 'reduce' the extent of His power, so that He would no longer
be Almighty?
 
Finally, can God change a person (whether a spirit person or a human person, it
makes no difference) into a dog without thereby causing the person in question
to cease to exist?  Or would you dare to say that this dog would be the same
'person' as the person who existed before he was changed into a dog?
 
Jason:

"I also would like to point out that your answer doesn't quite
correspond to my question: for I was not asking about the 'spirit being'
that Jesus WAS relative to the 'spirit being' that He now IS, but simply
about the 'spirit nature' which Jesus HAD relative to the 'spirit
nature' which He now HAS."

 
[Paul]

Perhaps that's because your question does not touch on Scriptural truth,
as I've pointed out a multitude of times.

[Jason]
 
Given that the question is occassioned by the peculiar Witness teachings about
Christ, you are, in that sense, quite correct that the question does not touch
on Scriptural truth; for, the peculiar Witness teachings about Christ are
neither found in the Bible, nor based upon a reasonable interpretation of the
Bible.
 
 Jason:

"You appear to be using the term 'being' here as a way of making your
statement ambiguous on this point:"
 
[Paul]


From your confusing beliefs, it's the best I could do.
 
[Jason]
 
Are you saying that my beliefs prevent you from expressing in a clear, precise,
and unambigous manner what you believe?  Might this perhaps be an indicator
that it is rather you, not me, who is the one who is 'confused' about one's
own beliefs, and that my questions have simply helped to expose to plain view
your confusion about your own beliefs?
[Paul]
 
  But, let me try
to clarify it further.. Paul was a devoted follower and disciple of
Jesus Christ. He knew that once he went to Rome, he would be put to
death. (Acts 20) He also knew that he would be in heaven with Jesus
Christ, but, as he wrote, since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of heaven", he would no longer be a "flesh and blood" human, he
would be a spirit being. Yet, he would still be "Paul" and not "John"
or "Peter" or "Matthias" or "Luke" or any other person. Now, if you
can't understand this, I cannot simplify it further..

[Jason]
 
If you can't clarify it any further than this, then you quite obviously didn't
given the matter careful and sufficient consideration before you bought into the
Witness metaphysic.  Perhaps, I can help to assist you here by offering you a
few basic questions to ponder:  What does it mean for Paul to be Paul and not to
be someone else instead?   Would Paul still be Paul if God were to change
him into a dog, or a rock, or a tree?  Why or why not?  If God were to create an
exact copy of Paul, would that copy be another Paul (i.e., a second Paul), or
would it be one and the same Paul as Paul himself?  Why or why not?
 
Jason:

"While Jesus was 'a human being' was He one and the same 'being' that
He was while He was 'a spirit being'?"

[Paul]

Jesus had the complete mind and memory of Jesus though the body was
changed by his Father.

[Jason]
 
Is it then, the mind and the memory which constitute a personal identity?  Is
there a difference between a spirit mind and memory and a human mind and memory,
or are minds and memories, to coin an expression, 'nature
neutral'?  Is the body somehow less essential to a person's identity than what
the mind and the memory is?  What is the relation between mind and body?  Can
the mind exist independently of the body?  Is the mind in any way a product of
the body?
 
[Jason:

"If you say yes, then I ask: is not a spirit being by definition
necessarily a DIFFERENT being than a human being?"

[Paul]

Yes, but the mind and memory contained in one type of "body" can be
transferred into another.

[Jason]
 
In your view, are mind and memory concretely existing things?  If so, are they
material or immaterial things?
 
God bless,
 
Jason
 
Recent Activity
	 *  1
New MembersVisit Your Group
Search Ads
Get new customers.
List your web site
in Yahoo! Search.
Dog Groups
on Yahoo! Groups
discuss everything
related to dogs.
Y! Groups blog
The place to go
to stay informed
on Groups news!
.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rob, if I call you the "only true owner of this group", even if there
are others who are moderators and who, for all appearances of the other
members, appear to be like the owner or an owner (if, for example, you
are something of an absentee owner), my statement shows that you and you
alone are the only true owner of this group.

In fact, I have no idea at all if YOU are the actual owner of this
group. It could easily have been started by someone else entirely and
that person could still be the "only true owner" of this group.  But,
for appearances sake, you seem to be the owner of this group.

Jesus said to his Father, "that they may know you, the only true God"
and nothing other than the Father is connected to that statement.  Jesus
was speaking directly to his Father when he said this and he started his
prayer with "Father".

I've already posted a multitude of Scriptures which any reasonable
person would conclude proves Jesus is not God.

"we know what we worship" "the Father" "God"  John 4

"and was heard because of his godly fear"   Hebrews 5

"yet to us, there is one God, the Father" 1 Corinthians 8:6

"I was taught" "commanded" by "the Father"   John 8, 12

"You gave them to me"  "All authority has been given to me" J0hn 17,
Matthew 28

"Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more
than Your companions." (Hebrews 1)

Honestly, I saw that I was still a member of this group called
"evangelicals_and_jws" and thought that I would take a look.    I do not
know if "Roy" is a Jehovah's Witness or not, but I do not see any
Jehovah's Witnesses posting here.   Maybe they simply got as tired of
trying to reason with others here as I am now.   Yes, tired.   Tired of
wasting so much time responding to nonsense posted by Jason.   Tired of
wasting any time on a guy named Barry who could only respond with "Two
different persons, one God." (Wow! How convincing!   Please!)

I certainly didn't start posting here so that I could be sucked into
enormously time-consuming "debates" and I'm done with Jason.  I'm sure
I'm done with Barry.   I'll see if there's anyone who's reasonable (if
such a person still posts here) and talk with him/her.   I really have
no obligation to do so.

Have a good night, Rob.

            Paul


--- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "Rob"
<faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> If I may chime in here, Jason is absolutely correct. John 17:3 does
not contradict the Trinity because it affirms that there is only one
true God (which Trinitarianism affirms) and that the Father is that God
(which we also affirm). It says that the Father is the-only-true-God,
not that the Father alone is the-true-God. In fact, I'll put it this
way: If the Father is NOT the only true God, then the doctrine of the
Trinity is false! A statement that is necessary to the doctrine cannot
at the same time contradict that doctrine.
>
> In Christ's service,
> Rob Bowman
>
>
>
> --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "standardbearer"
pgr_drifter@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jason said:
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > My disagreement with you about what John 17:3 means and does not
mean
> > has nothing at all to do with the definition of the word 'only', but
> > rather 'only' with the question of which words in John 17:3 are
modified
> > by the word 'only' and which words are not. As I read the phrase in
> > question, "that they may know you, the only true God" it seems quite
> > plain to me that the word 'only' modifies ONLY the words 'true God',
> > whereas you appear to be reading the phrase as though the word
'only'
> > somehow referred back to the word 'you'; i.e., you seem to be
reading
> > the phrase in question as though it read: "that they may know you,
the
> > only one who is the true God". Thus, whereas you read the text as
> > though it stated that there is only one person who is the true God,
and
> > that the Father is that person, I read it simply as affirming that
there
> > is only one true God, and that the Father is that one and only true
God;
> > i.e., the phrase in question tells us nothing at all about whether
or
> > not there are other persons besides the Father who are ALSO that
very
> > same one and only true God that the Father is, but simply that there
are
> > not several true Gods, and that the Father is not one of several
true
> > Gods; thus, IF there are other persons besides the Father who are
the
> > true God, they would have to be one and the same true God as the
Father,
> > not 'additional' true Gods.
> >
> > For the sake of clarity, I will ask you: do you understand that I do
NOT
> > hold that the Father is one of three true Gods?
> >
> >
> > God bless,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > __________________________________
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > The words that are modified by "only" are "true God". Jesus said,
> > "that they may know you, the only true God".
> >
> > I suppose "common sense" can be thrown out when having a
> > discussion with you, since you can't even fathom something as simple
as
> > "that they may know you, the only true God".
> >
> > I doubt that any further conversation between us could be
> > fruitful, so I am discontinuing this discussion from this point
forward.
> >
> > Paul
> >
>

________________________________
From: standardbearer <pgr_drifter@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1:58:30 PM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Separation of Person and Nature in Foster's
Treatment of Phil. 2:6,7.

 


Jason,

The words that are modified by "only" are "true God".
 
Hi Paul,
 
Correct!  That was PRECISELY my point!
 
[Paul]
Jesus said,
"that they may know you, the only true God".

[Jason]
 
Correct again!  He did NOT say: "that they may know you, the only one who is the
true God".
 
[Paul]

I suppose "common sense" can be thrown out when having a
discussion with you, since you can't even fathom something as simple as
"that they may know you, the only true God".

[Jason]
 
Thanks for the compliment! 
 
[Paul]

I doubt that any further conversation between us could be
fruitful, so I am discontinuing this discussion from this point forward.

Paul

[Jason]
 
Do as you will. 
 
God bless,
 
Jason

 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,

If I may chime in here, Jason is absolutely correct. John 17:3 does not
contradict the Trinity because it affirms that there is only one true God (which
Trinitarianism affirms) and that the Father is that God (which we also affirm).
It says that the Father is the-only-true-God, not that the Father alone is
the-true-God. In fact, I'll put it this way: If the Father is NOT the only true
God, then the doctrine of the Trinity is false! A statement that is necessary to
the doctrine cannot at the same time contradict that doctrine.

In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman



--- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "standardbearer" <pgr_drifter@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Jason said:
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> My disagreement with you about what John 17:3 means and does not mean
> has nothing at all to do with the definition of the word 'only', but
> rather 'only' with the question of which words in John 17:3 are modified
> by the word 'only' and which words are not.  As I read the phrase in
> question, "that they may know you, the only true God" it seems quite
> plain to me that the word 'only' modifies ONLY the words 'true God',
> whereas you appear to be reading the phrase as though the word 'only'
> somehow referred back to the word 'you'; i.e., you seem to be reading
> the phrase in question as though it read: "that they may know you, the
> only one who is the true God".   Thus, whereas you read the text as
> though it stated that there is only one person who is the true God, and
> that the Father is that person, I read it simply as affirming that there
> is only one true God, and that the Father is that one and only true God;
> i.e., the phrase in question tells us nothing at all about whether or
> not there are other persons besides the Father who are ALSO that very
> same one and only true God that the Father is, but simply that there are
> not several true Gods, and that the Father is not one of several true
> Gods; thus, IF there are other persons besides the Father who are the
> true God, they would have to be one and the same true God as the Father,
> not 'additional' true Gods.
>
> For the sake of clarity, I will ask you: do you understand that I do NOT
> hold that the Father is one of three true Gods?
>
>
> God bless,
>
> Jason
>
> __________________________________
>
> Jason,
>
>        The words that are modified by "only" are "true God".  Jesus said,
> "that they may know you, the only true God".
>
>        I suppose "common sense" can be thrown out when having a
> discussion with you, since you can't even fathom something as simple as
> "that they may know you, the only true God".
>
>        I doubt that any further conversation between us could be
> fruitful, so I am discontinuing this discussion from this point forward.
>
>               Paul
>

--------------------------------------------------
From: "standardbearer" <pgr_drifter@...>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:56 PM
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Separation of Person and Nature in
Foster'sTreatment of Phil. 2:6,7.

> Roy, the nations outside of the Nation of Israel, who had their pagan
> trinitarian worship and not the truth, would similarly live in a world
> of extreme confusion.    The Israelites should be called noteworthy by
> being the only nation among them that had a single Almighty God,
> Jehovah, and not a trinity.   I find it interesting that these same
> Christian religions can see that the nation of Israel worshiped only
> Jehovah, but can still try to espouse their trinitarian beliefs and not
> understand that they came out of the pagan Roman Empire.

It sounds as though you've been swallowing Watchtower propaganda hook, line
and sinker.  What nations around Israel had "trinitarian" beliefs?

Thanks -- this should be fun.  Nothing like a target rich environment.

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair
http://www.montclair.edu/
Classics Instructor, The American Academy
http://www.theamericanacademy.net/

And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog

Jason said:


Hi Paul,

My disagreement with you about what John 17:3 means and does not mean
has nothing at all to do with the definition of the word 'only', but
rather 'only' with the question of which words in John 17:3 are modified
by the word 'only' and which words are not.  As I read the phrase in
question, "that they may know you, the only true God" it seems quite
plain to me that the word 'only' modifies ONLY the words 'true God',
whereas you appear to be reading the phrase as though the word 'only'
somehow referred back to the word 'you'; i.e., you seem to be reading
the phrase in question as though it read: "that they may know you, the
only one who is the true God".   Thus, whereas you read the text as
though it stated that there is only one person who is the true God, and
that the Father is that person, I read it simply as affirming that there
is only one true God, and that the Father is that one and only true God;
i.e., the phrase in question tells us nothing at all about whether or
not there are other persons besides the Father who are ALSO that very
same one and only true God that the Father is, but simply that there are
not several true Gods, and that the Father is not one of several true
Gods; thus, IF there are other persons besides the Father who are the
true God, they would have to be one and the same true God as the Father,
not 'additional' true Gods.

For the sake of clarity, I will ask you: do you understand that I do NOT
hold that the Father is one of three true Gods?


God bless,

Jason

__________________________________

Jason,

        The words that are modified by "only" are "true God".  Jesus said,
"that they may know you, the only true God".

        I suppose "common sense" can be thrown out when having a
discussion with you, since you can't even fathom something as simple as
"that they may know you, the only true God".

        I doubt that any further conversation between us could be
fruitful, so I am discontinuing this discussion from this point forward.

               Paul

Roy wrote:

"I never read a word from Barry, however, explaining how the disputed
sentences from Jason "meant" something intelligible and what that was.

Besides, I am certain that the Evangelical use of terms as *defined*,
terms such as "person, essence, nature, hypostasis, etc" are not the
same as the one particular Eastern Orthodox view espoused by Jason at
length. In fact, I think that it is important for truth/clarity sake
that it not be assumed that the term uses by these two groups is
identical."

Roy, the nations outside of the Nation of Israel, who had their pagan
trinitarian worship and not the truth, would similarly live in a world
of extreme confusion.    The Israelites should be called noteworthy by
being the only nation among them that had a single Almighty God,
Jehovah, and not a trinity.   I find it interesting that these same
Christian religions can see that the nation of Israel worshiped only
Jehovah, but can still try to espouse their trinitarian beliefs and not
understand that they came out of the pagan Roman Empire.

________________________________
From: standardbearer <pgr_drifter@...>
To: evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 7:55:10 AM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Separation of Person and Nature in Foster's
Treatment of Phil. 2:6,7.

 

Jason, for now, I won't respond to your entire post. I will respond
only to this portion:

[Paul]

And, since Jesus called his Father "the only true God", his words alone
prove that he is not God.

[Jason]

His words prove no such thing. For, He does not say in John 17:3 (or in
any other place for that matter) that the Father alone is God.

Jason, what exactly does the word "only" mean? Jesus, in prayer to his
Father, called him "the ONLY true God". So, I will wait for this
definition from you, thank you.

 
Hi Paul,
 
My disagreement with you about what John 17:3 means and does not mean has
nothing at all to do with the definition of the word 'only', but rather 'only'
with the question of which words in John 17:3 are modified by the word 'only'
and which words are not.  As I read the phrase in question, "that they may know
you, the only true God" it seems quite plain to me that the word 'only'
modifies ONLY the words 'true God', whereas you appear to be reading the phrase
as though the word 'only' somehow referred back to the word 'you'; i.e., you
seem to be reading the phrase in question as though it read: "that they may know
you, the only one who is the true God".   Thus, whereas you read the text as
though it stated that there is only one person who is the true God, and that the
Father is that person, I read it simply as affirming that there is only one true
God, and that the Father is that one and only true God; i.e., the phrase in
question
  tells us nothing at all about whether or not there are other persons besides
the Father who are ALSO that very same one and only true God that the Father is,
but simply that there are not several true Gods, and that the Father is not one
of several true Gods; thus, IF there are other persons besides the Father who
are the true God, they would have to be one and the same true God as the Father,
not 'additional' true Gods.
 
For the sake of clarity, I will ask you: do you understand that I do NOT hold
that the Father is one of three true Gods?
 
God bless,
 
Jason
 
God bless,
 
Jason 
 
  
Messages in this topic (10) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Members

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to
Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
	 *  1
New MembersVisit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "parkrome" <parkrome@...>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:42 PM
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Separation of Person and Nature in
Foster'sTreatment of Phil. 2:6,7.

> Roy
> I completely agree that there are all kinds of vortexes we don't want to
> get sucked into out there, Barry.  Some are false assumptions, absence of
> logic, vapid ad hominem and pretense.  Good to avoid those too, doncha
> think?

Who, me?  Nah.  I love logical fallacies.  I revel in them.  I bathe in
them, allowing their pungent odors to steep into the very depths of my
soul...

> Not sure what you mean by "interminable", though.  If you refer to
> *length* and recondite use of terms I might imagine that criteria would
> include Monsieur Jason's posts as well.  If you read his then you would
> necessarily have read mine, or at least what was quoted from me, which you
> say you haven't read.  If you didn't read them then it is likely you are
> not knowledgeable about the precise use of terms by Jason as you might
> otherwise think you are.<<

Big words, long posts, little content.

'Nuff.

B

--- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "Barry" <nebarry@...> wrote:


> Roy
> I never read a word from Barry, however, explaining how the disputed
> sentences from Jason "meant" something intelligible and what that was.

Barry
Nor will you, as I do not plan to get sucked into the vortex of your
interminable posts.

Roy
I completely agree that there are all kinds of vortexes we don't want to get
sucked into out there, Barry.  Some are false assumptions, absence of logic,
vapid ad hominem and pretense.  Good to avoid those too, doncha think?

Not sure what you mean by "interminable", though.  If you refer to *length* and
recondite use of terms I might imagine that criteria would include Monsieur
Jason's posts as well.  If you read his then you would necessarily have read
mine, or at least what was quoted from me, which you say you haven't read.  If
you didn't read them then it is likely you are not knowledgeable about the
precise use of terms by Jason as you might otherwise think you are.


>> Besides, I am certain that the Evangelical use of terms as *defined*, terms
such as "person, essence, nature, hypostasis, etc" are not the same as the one
particular Eastern Orthodox view espoused by Jason at length.
> In fact, I think that it is important for truth/clarity sake that it not be
assumed that the term uses by these two groups is identical.<<

Barry
Perhaps, maybe, could be. This is not the forum to discuss it, however.

Roy
Didn't suggest discussing it, of course, but simply acknowledging the point for
the point that it makes.

Roy

--------------------------------------------------
From: "parkrome" <parkrome@...>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:55 AM
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: Separation of Person and Nature in
Foster'sTreatment of Phil. 2:6,7.

> Roy
> I never read a word from Barry, however, explaining how the disputed
> sentences from Jason "meant" something intelligible and what that was.

Nor will you, as I do not plan to get sucked into the vortex of your
interminable posts.

> Besides, I am certain that the Evangelical use of terms as *defined*,
> terms such as "person, essence, nature, hypostasis, etc" are not the same
> as the one particular Eastern Orthodox view espoused by Jason at length.
> In fact, I think that it is important for truth/clarity sake that it not
> be assumed that the term uses by these two groups is identical.<<

Perhaps, maybe, could be.  This is not the forum to discuss it, however.

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair
http://www.montclair.edu/
Classics Instructor, The American Academy
http://www.theamericanacademy.net/

And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog