Conference yukon::christian_v7

re.2

	Mark,

	I don't want to sound antagonistic, but the following paragraph
	that you wrote in reply .2 does not add up when you "check it
	out in God's Word".

;What can you do?  Declare the definition of Christianity in Christ, despite 
;the shouts of "Barabas" who also declare an "alternate" definition.  Christ
;is and MUST BE the center of the definition.  Not His teachings, but the
;God-Man Himself.  His teachings are not God.  Jesus is God.  We must center
;our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus Christ.
 
	Just before going to heaven Jesus commanded his followers to 
	"make disciples of all the nations"..."teaching them to observe
	all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to
	the close of the age." Matthew 28:19,20 RSV. Now, if Jesus'
	followers observed Jesus' command, then they in turn would
	teach others to observe Jesus' command cited in Matthew 28:19,20,
	in fact all his commandments (John 13:34,35). Jesus taught his
	disciples to observe his commandments and not that he himself
	is God. Should not Jesus' followers do like wise? for not doing
	so would mean disobedience to Jesus' command. Or am I misunderstanding
	what you are trying to say.
	
	 
	
	I believe that the Biblical answer to "What can you do?" is "seek
	meekness" (Zephaniah 2:3). 2 Timothy 3:1-5 shows the result of the
 	decline in morals, some having "a form of godly devotion but proving 
	false to it's power;" (verse 5 NWT) many will profess to being Christian
	but will adhere to worldly morals rather than the never changing
	moral code that is found in the Bible. However Christians are 
	influenced by the world, the way they can curtail it's effect is
	by seeking meekness. That is being submissive to God, by being 
	obedient to his commandments , and living their lives by the 
	principles found in the Bible. Other attributes of meekness include
	being humble, forbearing, mild of temper and gentle. Those who are
	meek do not condone the decline in moral standards, but make a firm
	stand to keep their own integrity towards God. Those who are meek will
	not pay back reviling for reviling, but will wait on God to make
	repayment for injustice. Meek persons, eventhough they might have
	a higher moral code, do not look down on those who apply worldly
	standards. But patiently help them to see how they can benefit
	themselves by applying Bible principles, those who are responsive
	can then be taught how to be meek and "observe all the things that
	I have commanded you;" Matthew 28:20.

	Phil.
	
	

>       Jesus taught his
>	disciples to observe his commandments and not that he himself
>	is God.

Phil, this is JW dogma and outside of the context of this notes string and
the premise of this conference.  Jesus said I and the Father are one.
Jesus is God and that is a major tenet of this conference.  The trinitarian
view is the view of this conference.

Further, the commandment to "go and make disciples" is not the greatest 
commandment, is it?  Jesus made this quite clear.  He quote Deuteronmy 6
and I paraphrase, Love God first with everything you have; and your neighbor as
yourself.  Also, seek the kingdom of God first, and all these things will
be added.

Jesus Christ is God.  God the Father is God.  God the Holy Spirit is God.

Christ IS the central theme and focus of Christianity, not his teachings,
not the stories ABOUT Christ: Christ HIMSELF is the focus.  God is to be
the FIRST and only God.  Have no other gods before Me, says the Lord.

Seeking meekness comes after knowing God.  All things come after knowing
God more intimately.  He must come first.  

I realize this doesn't sit well with you because you do not believe Jesus 
is God with us (His name shall be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted
is God with us.)  And so your reasoning.  But based on the tenets of this
conference (non-JW Christianity), Christ IS the center of Christianity,
not meekness, not evangelism, not commandments save the greatests...
NOTHING however noble or good supercedes the personhood of God in Jesus Christ 
as the center of Christianity, God the Son, Co-Equal with God the Father, 
and God the Spirit; and in fact they are One God.

Mark

Mark, 

Please tell me how you interpret Matthew 28:19,20?, from your reply in .2
and .27 it would seem that you were telling people to ignore part of it.
It is possible that I am misinterpretting what you are saying. 

;Further, the commandment to "go and make disciples" is not the greatest 
;commandment, is it?  Jesus made this quite clear.

He also made it clear that "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful
also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also 
in much." Luke 16:10 RSV. In your reply, in .2 you said "check it out
in God's Word.". So I highlighted your paragraph that quoted "Not His 
teachings," and compared to Jesus' words in Matthew 28:20 "teaching them to 
observe all that I have commanded you;". This commandment being the last
thing he told to his disciples is no doubt important and to some degree his
followers would individually fulfill this commission. 

I have no need to make issue with what you wrote, it is up to each individual 
reader to "check it out in God's Word." and discern for themselves what Jesus
expects of his followers.

btw is it outside of the context of this notes string and the premise of this 
conference to quote Scripture and comment on it, comparing it to what people
have written?.

Phil. 

    >btw is it outside of the context of this notes string and the premise
    >of this conference to quote Scripture and comment on it, comparing it 
    >to what people have written?.
    
    No...
    
    But this is:
    
    >Jesus taught his disciples to observe his commandments and not that 
    >he himself is God.
    
    
    Your comments crossed the line of the premise, now your note hasn't
    been set hidden, but your doctrine has been refuted.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

128.29 (Phil)

>Please tell me how you interpret Matthew 28:19,20?, from your reply in .2
>and .27 it would seem that you were telling people to ignore part of it.
>It is possible that I am misinterpretting what you are saying. 
>
>;Further, the commandment to "go and make disciples" is not the greatest 
>;commandment, is it?  Jesus made this quite clear.

(1) We are to go and make disciples but our PRIORITY must first be here:

Matthew 22
 36  Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
 37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
 38  This is the first and great commandment.
 39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
 40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This is repeats in the other gospels.

(2)  Interpretation:

Matthew 28
 19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
 20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It is in the name of the *Father, Son, and Holy Ghost* that we are to
make disciples (teach all nations).  The PRIORIOTY MUST BE GOD FIRST.
God before evangelism.  Evangelism CANNOT happen for God UNLESS God is
known first.

ALL things, including Jesus' "important" commandments are UNDER the
great commandment in Matthew 22.  What you say is true about expecting
his followers to "go and make disciples" BUT if you "go and make 
disciples without first know for Whom you make disciples, one labors in 
vain and sows the destruction of others as well as themself.  This is the
tragedy of "putting the cart before the horse" and the pitfall of many
a Christian and pseudo-Christian.

Mark

(P.S. Nancy answered your other question.)

.30

	Nancy,

	If I said "Jesus taught his disciples to observe his commandments."
	would I still be crossing the boundaries of this conference?.

 	Phil.

re .31

Mark,

I agree that teaching the gospel without making God and Jesus known will be
in vain. Who God and Jesus is, is the important part of the gospel message.
God's name will be sanctified (Matthew 6:9,10).

	John 17:26 NWT reads "And I have made your name known to them and
	will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved
	me may be in them and I in union with them."

	Compare Psalm 83:18 KJV and John 17:3.


You say that one must fulfill the greatest commandment that is first to love
God. But have you noticed John's definition of what the love of God means:
"For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments;
and yet his commandments are not burdensome," 1 John 5:3 NWT  Also compare
John 14:15,21,John 15:10, 2 John 6. Although, the other commandments are
under the great commandment one cannot say one is fulfilling it, if one
purposely ignores any of these smaller ones.

So for individual persons to fulfill the grestest commandment, they must learn 
Jesus' teachings which goes hand in hand with learning about who God and Jesus
are, no? (compare 1 John 2:3-4).

As Eccl 12:13 NWT reads "The conclusion of the matter, everything having been 
heard, is: Fear the [true] God and keep his commandments. For this is the
whole [obligation] of man."

;BUT if you "go and make disciples without first know for Whom you make 
;disciples, one labors in vain and sows the destruction of others as well as 
;themself.

This is true, hence the importance of a worldwide Bible education program
so that people can come to learn who God and Jesus is as well as what
is God's will for them. If they are not taught this, then there is no way 
they will ever fulfill or be part of Jesus' commission. How important do
you think it is that they become involved in Jesus' commission?.

; This is the tragedy of "putting the cart before the horse" and the pitfall 
; of many a Christian and pseudo-Christian. 

A bigger tragedy is that Christendom has failed in teaching it's members 
to live by Jesus' teachings, in that the cart is not hitched upto to the
horse. Protestant killing Protestant and Catholic killing Catholic during
times of war, springs to mind, if only they taught Jesus' new commandment
found in John 13:34.


Phil.

I don't think anyone here has any problem with the assertion that Jesus called
us to obey His commandments: certainly He did tell us that, many times.

What people are reacting to is your statement that Jesus did not claim to be
God.  In the entire book of John, in particular, Jesus makes the claim over and
over that He is more than just God's messenger, that He is God Himself.

How do you interpret John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, 'truly, truly I say to you,
before Abraham was, I am.'"  ??  Jesus not only claimed to have existed since
before Abraham was born, but used the same words "I am" for himself that God had
used in response to the question "Who shall I tell them sent me?"

Remember in your interpretation that this simple statement caused the Jews to
become so enraged that they took up stones to stone him.  A valid 
interpretation must allow this statement to remain outrageous enough to deserve
stoning.

Paul

Note 128.33  YERKLE::YERKESS

Phil, 
  Thanks for ratholing the topic.  As to some of the Scripture you point 
out, I would confirm it with Scripture.

1 John 5:3  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and
his commandments are not grievous.

  Here we are to keep the commandments of God.

John 14:15  If ye love me, keep my commandments.

  Jesus said the same thing in John 14:15.  Here we are to keep the commandments
of God also.  Paull addressed it well, also.

But as for the "Great Commission":  How has this become the FIRST commandment
to show our love towards God?  Jesus gave us many commandments and we should
observe them all.  The term "great commission" was added by a commentator.
The fact that it is the last recorded command in Matthew is somehow to 
give it more weight than other commands?  The last recorded command of Jesus
was to wait in Jerusalem for the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5).

Since this commandment was fulfilled, should we then order Christ's commandments
according to descending chronological order?  So that "loving one another"
is not as important as "making disciples" (or teaching all nations - KJV)?

No go.  Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was and he responded.
Love God with everything.  You see the Scripture to keep his commandments
if you love God.  Good!  Do this!  But be careful not to elevate any one
commandment over another.  Jesus said, "keep my commandment*s*."  And
as you affirm with 1 John 5:3 they are the commandments of God, one and
the same Person.

Loving God is so simple and so complex.  Simple in instruction: "Love God"
complex in its implementation because it can take many, many, many ways
and forms.  The commandments of God are merely pieces of the whole law of
love.  When a piece gets an inordinate focus, God gets out of focus.

As for the reference about people killing people, I shan't rathole this
topic further by getting into the debate already somewhere else about 
justification for killing another person.  I hope you won't either, or at 
least take it there.

So I reiterate:  Declare the definition of Christianity in Christ, despite 
the shouts of "Barabas" who also declare an "alternate" definition.  Christ
is and MUST BE the center of the definition.  Not His teachings, but the
God-Man Himself.  His teachings are not God.  Jesus is God.  We must center
our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus Christ.

    Phil,
    
       B I G     D I F F E R E N C E
    
    
                       BETWEEN THIS
    
    >Jesus taught his disciples to observe his commandments and not that
    >he himself is God.
    
	                     AND THIS
    
    
    >If I said "Jesus taught his disciples to observe his commandments."
    >would I still be crossing the boundaries of this conference?.

 
    Of course, Jesus commanded us *all* to observe his commandments... but
    that is another topic, if you like make it one, but let's not continue
    discussing this in here.
    
    Back on topic, Please!
    
    Nancy
    Co-mod, CHRISTIAN

re .34

Paul,

;I don't think anyone here has any problem with the assertion that Jesus called
;us to obey His commandments: certainly He did tell us that, many times.

That is good, but I was under the impression that was being said was that
his teachings are not important and so should be swept under the carpet.

;What people are reacting to is your statement that Jesus did not claim to be
;God.  In the entire book of John, in particular, Jesus makes the claim over and
;over that He is more than just God's messenger, that He is God Himself.

Yes, you are right I should have been a bit more sensitive to where I am noting.
But, that is not to say that I agree with what you are saying. On the whole,
Jesus never made claims to his identity (apart from times such as his discussion
with the Samaritan women at the well John 4:25,26). In the main he left people 
to work it out for themselves his real identity (compare Mark 8:27-30). One
could say the same is true today.

;How do you interpret John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, 'truly, truly I say to you,
;before Abraham was, I am.'"  ??

Other translations render this "I have been" rather than "I am", so seeing
you asked the question Jesus was simply stating that he existed before
Abraham in that he had a pre-human existance. I can go into this in further
detail if you wish in another topic. But this is not what I am calling into
question in this note string, it was primarily "Not his teachings" that
caught my eye. Jesus gave an illustration of how his disciples needed
to way up the cost of being one of his disciples, it is found at Luke 14:28-30.
When making disciples it is not enough for one just to identify who God
and Christ are, what is also needed is to tell them what is expected of them.
This way individuals can count the cost and decide for themselves whether or
not they wish to follow through with loving Almighty God with their whole heart,
whole mind, whole soul and whole strength (Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27).

Phil.

re:    <<< Note 128.37 by YERKLE::YERKESS "Vita in un pacifico nouvo mondo" >>>


>;How do you interpret John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, 'truly, truly I say to you,
>>;before Abraham was, I am.'"  ??

>Other translations render this "I have been" rather than "I am", so seeing


  Which translations, and how do they render Matthew 1:23 "Behold the virgin
  shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name
  Immanuel" which translated means "God with us"? (NASB)






 Jim

re .35

Mark,

; Thanks for ratholing the topic.

That was not my intention,  I am not very eloquent with words and sometimes
find it difficult to keep the note string on course when calling into question
that which someone has stated. But all you needed to say was please don't 
rathole the topic.

;So I reiterate:  Declare the definition of Christianity in Christ, despite 
;the shouts of "Barabas" who also declare an "alternate" definition.  Christ
;is and MUST BE the center of the definition.  Not His teachings, but the
;God-Man Himself.  His teachings are not God.  Jesus is God.  We must center
;our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus Christ.

What do you mean by "We must center our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus 
Christ"?. How will this bring peoples moral standards in line with God's?.

Phil.

(Something's weird with Notes) Do a set seen/before=5-may-1993:13:40
and then a next unseen and you'll see a note I put in as 130.14, but
back up a note (to .13) then forward again, and it is Phil's note.

Here is the text of my note in response to Phil:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>What do you mean by "We must center our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus
>Christ"?. How will this bring peoples moral standards in line with God's?

The person of Jesus Christ and Who He is is central to the focus of
Christianity.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus is God, nor in the Trinity, so I
expect you will not care for this definition.

Christianity is not a set of commandments, for commandments have NO WEIGHT
outside of the Authority giving the commandments.  I can spout of many
commandments and teachings and if you followed them, some of them might
benefit you (and some might not).  So it is important WHO gives the
commandments, and WHO provides the teachings of love, etc because that
WHO is the Authority that gives weight to the teachings.

The wrong way is to take it backwards:  This teaching is good and therefore
the person who gave them is my authority.  To approach things this way is
to place SELF in authority of determining which teachings are good.

It (Christianity) must begin with the Authority of the PERSON.  The object
of Christianity is Christ and WHO HE IS and not His teachings.  His teachings
are the outflow of His Person, His Being; not the converse.

Jesus said, "If you love me (the authority), keep my commandments" and
not "if you keep my commandments, I will be the (your) authority."  The focus,
the object is the person of Jesus Christ, the I AM.

Mark

    re 130.13 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)
    
>>Other translations render this "I have been" rather than "I am", so seeing
>
>
>  Which translations, ...
    
    	I hope Phil doesn't mind if I answer this.  I just happen to have a
    few examples on-line (having looked into this before).  I've posted
    some of this in NOTES before, but it's not worth tracking down the
    conference  references.  (NOTE: Some are English translations of
    other-language translations.)
    
    
         'Truly, truly I tell you,' said Jesus, 'I have existed before
         Abraham was born.' [Dr. James Moffatt]
    
         Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed before Abraham was
         born.' [Prof. E.J. Goodspeed]
    
         Then Jesus said to them, 'I most solemnly say to you, I
         existed before Abraham was born.' [_The New Testament_, by
         Chas. Williams]
    
         'Believe me,' Jesus replied, 'before Abraham was, I have
         been.' [_The Twentieth Century New Testament_, 1904]
    
         Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before
         Abraham was born, I was.  [_The Modern New Testament_ by G.M.
         Lamsa]
    
         Jesus: 'Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war
         ich schon da]!' [_Das Neue Testament_ (German), by F.
         Pfaefflin]
    
         Jesus said to them: "Truly, truly, I say to you: Before
         Abraham was born, I was [war ich]." [_Das Neue Testament_
         (German), by C. Stage]
    
         Jesus answered: 'In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before
         Abraham was born, I was [era yo].' [_Nuevo Testamento_
         (Spanish), by Nacar Colunga]
    
         Before Abraham existed, I was. [_Biblia Sagrada_ (Sacred
         Bible), by the Catholic Bible Center of Sao Paulo, Brazil]
    
         Before Abraham was, I have been. [(Hebrew) by Dr. Franz
         Delitzsch, 1937]
    
         I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham. [(Hebrew)
         by Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg, 1941]
    
         Jesus told them, "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed
         before Abraham was born." [_The Original New Testament_, by
         Hugh J. Schonfield (1985)]
    
         Jesus said to them: Truly truly I tell you, I am from before
         Abraham was born.  [_The Four Gospels and the Revelation_, by
         Richmond Lattimore, (1979)
    
         "before Abraham was, I have been" [4th/5th Century Syriac --
         Edition: _A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac
         of the Sinaitic Palimpset_, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London,
         1894]
    
         "before ever Abraham came to be I was" [5th Century,
         Curetonian Syriac -- _The Curetonian Version of the Four
         Gospels_, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England,
         1904]
    
         "before Abraham existed, I was" [5th Century, Syriac
         _Peshitta_ -- Edition: _The Syriac New Testament Translated
         into English from the Peshitto Versions_, by James Murdock,
         7th ed., Boston and London, 1896]
    
         "before Abraham came to be, I was" [5th Century, Georgian --
         Edition: "The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John," by
         Robert P. Blake and Maurice Briere, published in _Patrologia
         Orientalis_, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.]
    
         "before Abraham was born, I was" [6th Century, Ethiopic --
         Edition: _Novum Testamentum ... Aethiopice_ (The New
         Testament ... in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by
         F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.]
    
    
    I also happen to have an edition of the NASB NT which contains the
    rendering "I have been" in the margin note.  From memory, I also recall
    that the paraphrased _Living Bible_ says "I have been".   I think I
    have a few other translations which give similar renderings, but I
    don't have info from them on-line (it seems).
    
    
>  ...                 and how do they render Matthew 1:23 "Behold the virgin
>  shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name
>  Immanuel" which translated means "God with us"? (NASB)
    
    	I have a copy of _Harper's Bible Dictionary_ (at home), and as I
    recall, it had a very good article on the significance of the name
    "Immanuel," with a particular emphasis on what the prophetic name meant
    to the people alive in Isaiah's time, which was when the prophecy was
    first given.  (Unfortunately, I don't seem to have it on-line.)
    
    	To summarize, the name, which was literally given to the child born
    in Isaiah's time, signified that God's spirit and blessing was with his
    people, and that he would provide deliverance from their troubles.  At
    the time, the kingdom of Judah was having trouble with the northern
    (apostate) kingdom of Israel, which was in league with the Syrians.  In
    Isaiah 7:10, through Isaiah, Jehovah told king Ahaz (of Judah) to ask
    for a sign which would reassure him that Jehovah would deliver his
    kingdom.  In verse 12, Ahaz refused, feeling that he would have been
    putting Jehovah to the test; thus in verses 13 and 14, Jehovah selected
    his own sign, namely, the birth of "Immanuel" to a "maiden".
    
    	The point was that the literal child Immanuel, born from an
    unidentified maiden (though probably known to the people back then),
    would prove that God wasn't going to abandon Judah, but instead, that
    he would rescue them from their adversaries, and thus prove to be
    "with" them.  Obviously, no one claimed that the child born back then
    was God.
    
    	The prophetic name, as applied to Jesus, indicated that through
    Jesus, God once again proved to be "with" his people.  In fact, it was
    plainly understood that in the same way, God was also "with" Jesus, for
    Nicodemus confessed to him:
    
    		"Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from
    		God; for no one can do these signs that you do,
    		unless God is with him."  (John 3:2 RSV)
    
    Obviously Nicodemus wasn't saying Jesus WAS God, for he said Jesus was
    "FROM God", and that "God is WITH him"; but rather, the fact that
    Nicodemus (and the others included in his "we") knew that Jesus was
    sent from God and was his agent is confirmation that the prophetic name
    "Immanuel" applies to Jesus, for by the signs he performed, it was
    clear to all that God was "with Jesus," and thus by extention, "with
    us" (or with his people, both then and now, providing that we respond
    to Jesus' position as God's Messiah in a favorable way).
    
    	The notion of God being "with" his people crops up in the OT rather
    often, having the sense of God's favor being upon his people -- often
    in connection with His having raised up a faithful judge or king to
    lead the people to salvation by following the chosen one's lead --
    rather than Him being literally visible among them.  This notion finds
    its final fulfillment in Jesus, who likewise serves as the agent
    through whom God affects salvation.
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .15 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>>What do you mean by "We must center our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus
>>Christ"?. How will this bring peoples moral standards in line with God's?
>
>The person of Jesus Christ and Who He is is central to the focus of
>Christianity.
>Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus is God, nor in the Trinity, so I
>expect you will not care for this definition.
    
    	Though we don't believe in the trinity, we ALSO could say that,
    "The person of Jesus Christ and Who He is is central to the focus of
    Christianity," since it's clear that Christianity focuses worship of
    Jehovah through Jesus.
    
>Christianity is not a set of commandments, for commandments have NO WEIGHT
>outside of the Authority giving the commandments.  I can spout of many
>commandments and teachings and if you followed them, some of them might
>benefit you (and some might not).  So it is important WHO gives the
>commandments, and WHO provides the teachings of love, etc because that
>WHO is the Authority that gives weight to the teachings.
    
    	You also won't get an argument about this from Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Merely living a good life, which possibly coincides with the positive
    aspects of Jesus' commandments, means little if a person doesn't
    properly submit to God's authority which is exercised through Jesus.
    
>The wrong way is to take it backwards:  This teaching is good and therefore
>the person who gave them is my authority.  To approach things this way is
>to place SELF in authority of determining which teachings are good.
    
    	Right ... and if you've been given the impression that Jehovah's
    Witnesses feel that the good of one's deeds, in response to God's
    commandments, is what gives those commands their authority, then we
    (Phil and I) would surely like to dispel that notion, for we truly
    believe as you that it's of fundamental importance to recognize the
    Sovereign authority behind those commands, namely God's.
    
>Jesus said, "If you love me (the authority), keep my commandments" and
>not "if you keep my commandments, I will be the (your) authority."  
    
    	I took the liberty of looking this up:
    
    		"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you;
    		abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you
    		will abide in my love, just as I have kept my
    		Father's commandments and abide in his love. ...
    		I have called you friends, for all that I have heard
    		from my Father I have made known to you."  
    		(John 16:10, 15b RSV)
    
    It's evident from this passage that just as we are under the direct
    authority and love of Jesus, Jesus himself is under the direct
    authority and love of his Father; thus we recognize in the commandments
    of Jesus the ultimate Sovereignty of his Father, who gave him the
    authority to command us.
    
> .....                                                              The focus,
>the object is the person of Jesus Christ, the I AM.
    
    	But it's also true that Jesus didn't focus attention on himself,
    but rather, on his Father; thus Jesus has set the perfect example for
    us in worship of his Father, Jehovah God.
    
    								-mark.
    

    -mark, 
    
    This is interesting... Can you tell me which version of the
    Bible these folks are using to come up with their translations, or are
    they all GREEK/HEBREW scholars that have read the original texts and
    come up with these translations.. you lost me with all the personal
    names?????  And what is there doctrinal background affiliation?
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

    The gospel of John tells us that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, not
    because he said he existed before Abraham, but because he committed
    blasphemy claiming Himself to be God(I AM).  Also, John 1 introduces 
    us to the fact that Jesus is the Word and the Word was God and that 
    the Word became flesh. 

    Jim

    >But it's also true that Jesus didn't focus attention on himself,
    >but rather, on his Father; thus Jesus has set the perfect example
    >for us in worship of his Father, Jehovah God.
    
    I beg to differ,
    
    John 14:7-11
    
    If ye had known me, ye should have known my father also and from
    henceforth ye know him and have *seen* him.
    
    Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father and it sufficeth us.
    
    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you and yet has
    thou not known me, Phillip?  he that hath *seen* me hath seen the
    Father and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    
    Belevest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?  the
    words that I speak untoyou Ispeak not of myself; but he Father that
    dwelleth inme, he doeth the works.  
    
    Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me or else
    believe me for the very works' sake. (KJV)
    
    
    Nancy

>    		"Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from
>    		God; for no one can do these signs that you do,
>    		unless God is with him."  (John 3:2 RSV)
>    
>    Obviously Nicodemus wasn't saying Jesus WAS God, for he said Jesus was
>    "FROM God", and that "God is WITH him"; but rather, the fact that
>    Nicodemus (and the others included in his "we") knew that Jesus was
>    sent from God and was his agent is confirmation that the prophetic name
>    "Immanuel" applies to Jesus, for by the signs he performed, it was
>    clear to all that God was "with Jesus," and thus by extention, "with
>    us" (or with his people, both then and now, providing that we respond
>    to Jesus' position as God's Messiah in a favorable way).
 
You'll also notice from this text (the context) that Nicodemus is coming
for information and obviously doesn't have a clear picture of things.
It is NOT unreasonable to assume that Nicodemus did not accept Jesus as God
since it was Jesus inner circle who first had this revelation sink in:

Matthew 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God.

Mark 8:29  And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter
answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

Now for the others...

>    	I took the liberty of looking this up:
>    
>    		"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you;
>    		abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you
>    		will abide in my love, just as I have kept my
>    		Father's commandments and abide in his love. ...
>    		I have called you friends, for all that I have heard
>    		from my Father I have made known to you."  
>    		(John 16:10, 15b RSV)
>    
>    It's evident from this passage that just as we are under the direct
>    authority and love of Jesus, Jesus himself is under the direct
>    authority and love of his Father; thus we recognize in the commandments
>    of Jesus the ultimate Sovereignty of his Father, who gave him the
>    authority to command us.

Read also Philippians 2:6 and 2:8, which puts Jesus' submission to the 
Father in perspective.  It does not diminish his person in the Godhead.

Philippians
  6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God:
  8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

>> .....                                                              The focus,
>>the object is the person of Jesus Christ, the I AM.
>    
>    	But it's also true that Jesus didn't focus attention on himself,
>    but rather, on his Father; thus Jesus has set the perfect example for
>    us in worship of his Father, Jehovah God.

As true as Jesus did not also dissuade people from worshipping him because
only God deserves to be worshipped.

Onto .18...

Re: Phil

>>What do you mean by "We must center our Christianity on the PERSON of Jesus 
>>Christ"?. How will this bring peoples moral standards in line with God's?.

Phil:

I am not answering for Mark but your question brought to mind an interesting
incident in the gospels.  

"Now it came to pass as they went, they entered a certain village: and a certain
woman named Martha took him into her house.  And she had a certain sister named 
Mary, who sat at Jesus feet to hear his word.  But Martha was cumbered about
much serving and came to him and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister
has left me to serve alone?  Bid her therefore that she may help me.  Jesus
answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled
about many things.  But one thing is needful; and Mary has chosen that good 
part, which shall not be taken away from her."  Luke 10:38-42.

Mary is the type of woman to me who centered her faith on the person of Jesus
Christ.  Since Jesus is the propitiation for our sin, it makes sense to me that
Jesus, The Alpha and The Omega, is to be the object of our faith.  We are
called to be holy (set apart).  This comes from being filled with the Holy
Spirit. (Not the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit).

-Jack

    To show that I am able to climb over doctrine to get to the truth (As
    many in here are as well), I think it fair to point out that the verse
    from John 10 stating, "I and the Father are One", is in the neuter
    form.  Because of this, biblical scholars interpret this to mean
    One in purpose.
    
    -Jack

More on "was before Abraham"

Revelation 4:8
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him;
and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And Jesus himslef declares in Revelation 1:8

 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

I have little problem with rendering "before Abraham, I existed" because
God was, is, and is to come.  And it is ALSO CORRECTLY translated as 
I AM (a continual, eternal existence).

MM

    re .21 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>You'll also notice from this text (the context) that Nicodemus is coming
>for information and obviously doesn't have a clear picture of things.
    
    	It's true that Nicodemus "didn't have a clear picture of things,"
    but Jesus didn't say anything about his being God to Nicodemus (and
    thus correct what you imply is his erroneous view that Jesus is only
    from God).  Instead, he spoke about the qualifications for entrance
    into the "kingdom of God" (which is perhaps what was on Nicodemus'
    mind, though the passage doesn't really say what he was after; Jesus
    simply starts talking about the kingdom).
    
    
>It is NOT unreasonable to assume that Nicodemus did not accept Jesus as God
>since it was Jesus inner circle who first had this revelation sink in:
>
>Matthew 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
>of the living God.
>
>Mark 8:29  And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter
>answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
    
    	Well, unless my monitor is severly distorting the scriptures you
    just quoted, I see no proof in them that the disciples in the inner
    circle (like Peter) understood that Jesus was God.  The scriptures that
    you quote state that Peter identified Jesus as 1) "the Christ," and 2)
    "the Son of the living God".
    
    	To claim that this was a revelation that Jesus WAS God is to read
    something into these verses that just isn't there.
    
    	On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is "the
    Christ" and "the son of the living God" as Peter did.
    
    								-mark.

>>You'll also notice from this text (the context) that Nicodemus is coming
>>for information and obviously doesn't have a clear picture of things.
>    
>    	It's true that Nicodemus "didn't have a clear picture of things,"
 >   but Jesus didn't say anything about his being God to Nicodemus (and
 >   thus correct what you imply is his erroneous view that Jesus is only
 >   from God). 

To quote a friend of mine, this is an "argument from silence."  Jesus
had other things ("revelations") for Nicodemus, which as you say 
"...perhaps what was on Nicodemus'
    mind, though the passage doesn't really say what he was after; Jesus
    simply starts talking about the kingdom)."

>>Matthew 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
>>of the living God.
>>
>>Mark 8:29  And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter
>>answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
>    
>    	Well, unless my monitor is severly distorting the scriptures you
>    just quoted, I see no proof in them that the disciples in the inner
>    circle (like Peter) understood that Jesus was God.  The scriptures that
>    you quote state that Peter identified Jesus as 1) "the Christ," and 2)
>    "the Son of the living God".

I'll give you this.  We obviously read something quite different into the
"Son of God" being the only begotten (not born, not created) of God.

>    	On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is "the
>    Christ" and "the son of the living God" as Peter did.

I would reserve judgment on the "as Peter did" part.

MM

    re .20 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy
    
>    >But it's also true that Jesus didn't focus attention on himself,
>    >but rather, on his Father; thus Jesus has set the perfect example
>    >for us in worship of his Father, Jehovah God.
    
>    John 14:7-11
    
    	Before getting into the specifics of this passage, note what Jesus
    said in verse 6:
    
    		"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no
    		one comes TO THE FATHER, but by me." (RSV, emphasis added)
    
    Coming "to the Father" is what's most important.  We must 'come to
    Jesus,' but only has the means of coming to the Father.
    
>    If ye had known me, ye should have known my father also and from
>    henceforth ye know him and have *seen* him.
>    
>    Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father and it sufficeth us.
>    
>    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you and yet has
>    thou not known me, Phillip?  he that hath *seen* me hath seen the
>    Father and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
>    
>    Belevest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?  the
>    words that I speak untoyou Ispeak not of myself; but he Father that
>    dwelleth inme, he doeth the works.  
>    
>    Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me or else
>    believe me for the very works' sake. (KJV)
    
    	I'd say that this is self explanatory.  Since not even orthodox
    trinitarians claim that Jesus was claiming to be the Father, it's 
    evident that Jesus was making it clear that their first-hand experience
    with Jesus, who was performing powerful works with his Father's power,
    should have been sufficient to teach them what the Father was like.
    As later Bible writers wrote, Jesus is
    
    		"the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15 RSV)
    
    and is one who
    
    		"reflects the glory of God and bears the very
    		stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3a RSV).
    
    As the "image of God" and the 'reflection' of the glory of God, Jesus
    is obviously NOT God; but is like God in so many ways that it's true to
    say he "bears the very stamp of his nature."  Thus Jesus could
    truthfully say to Philip that he who saw Jesus as seen his Father, for
    Jesus was the very image of his Father, God.
    
    								-mark.

    
    
    As I read my Bible that talks so clear as to Jesus being God, I
    wonder how others *who deny His deity* have tranlated it and get
    real disgusted...  
    
             Some references are: John 20:28, 2Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13
                                  Jer. 23:6, Heb. 1:8, 1John 5:20
    
      Thank you Lord, for allowing me not to question what your Word
      says, even if it is difficult to understand sometimes. 
    
    Josie

>    		"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no
>    		one comes TO THE FATHER, but by me." (RSV, emphasis added)

Jesus is the only way for man to come to God.  The Holy Spirit bears
witness to this.  These are the functions of the Trinity.  

What does it mean "but by me?"  It is in the death and bodily resurrection of
the God-man through which we are reconciled to God - no other way.

>    As the "image of God" and the 'reflection' of the glory of God, Jesus
>    is obviously NOT God; but is like God in so many ways that it's true to
>    say he "bears the very stamp of his nature."  Thus Jesus could
>    truthfully say to Philip that he who saw Jesus as seen his Father, for
>    Jesus was the very image of his Father, God.

No doubt you must realize how inflammatory your statements are here, Mark. (?)

>             Some references are: John 20:28, 2Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13
>                                  Jer. 23:6, Heb. 1:8, 1John 5:20

John 20:28  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

2Peter 1:1  Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them
that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Titus 2:13  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Jeremiah 23:6  In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR
RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Hebrews 1:8  But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

1John 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an
understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is
true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Another verse:

Colossians 2:9  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

And about God the Holy Spirit:

John 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you
into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall
hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.


 Titus 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost;
  6  Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;


Also (verse 8 omitted):

2John 1:7  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
  9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath
not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father
and the Son.
 10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
into your house, neither bid him God speed:

    re 130.27 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
    Pardon the layers of quotes.
    
>>>You'll also notice from this text (the context) that Nicodemus is coming
>>>for information and obviously doesn't have a clear picture of things.
>>    
>>    	It's true that Nicodemus "didn't have a clear picture of things,"
> >   but Jesus didn't say anything about his being God to Nicodemus (and
> >   thus correct what you imply is his erroneous view that Jesus is only
> >   from God). 
>
>To quote a friend of mine, this is an "argument from silence."  Jesus
>had other things ("revelations") for Nicodemus, which as you say 
>"...perhaps what was on Nicodemus'
>    mind, though the passage doesn't really say what he was after; Jesus
>    simply starts talking about the kingdom)."
    
    	I have to laugh because my saying that Nicodemus may have had the
    kingdom of God on his mind was *hardly* the main point that I was
    making.  To reiterate, the main point was that the scripture says that
    Nicodemus and others recognized that Jesus was "from God" and that God
    was "with" him.  There's NO argument from silence about this.
    
    	In so may words, you said, 'yeah but, Nicodemus just didn't *know*
    that Jesus was God yet' -- but really, saying THIS is arguing from
    silence, or arguing in the absence of evidence which might directly
    contradict it, since the Scriptures do not state directly that
    Nicodemus was either correct or incorrect by saying Jesus was "from
    God".  Instead, they merely present his words at face value and move
    on.  [What John later writes might be taken to suggest that Nicodemus
    was a secret disciple of Christ (7:50 & 19:39), but he doesn't say
    anything more about what Nicodemus does or does not believe.]
    
    	Later in John, we see that Jesus himself said (to his opposers, who
    we might argue had many wrong ideas about him):
    
    		"If God were your Father, you would love me, for
    		I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my
    		own accord, but he sent me."  (8:42 RSV)
    
    Jesus also made it clear that it was his *Father* who was the God of the
    Jews, and not he himself, for he said a few verses later:
    
    		"If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my
    		Father who glorifies me, of whom you say he is your
    		God."  (8:54 RSV)
    
    Jesus came right out and said that the God that the Jews claimed to 
    worship was his Father.  Given the plainness of his language, it's
    obvious that Jesus was NOT including himself in any sort of trinitarian
    Godhead, so that he too was actually their God.
    
    	Furthermore, note that Jesus said, "If I glorify myself, my glory
    is nothing."  If Jesus WAS God, any glory he gave himself certainly
    WOULD have been SOMETHING, and not "nothing."
    
    	Getting back to the point about Nicodemus' words, Jesus confirms
    that Nicodemus understood correctly that Jesus was "from God," and that
    God was "with him," which is why he could perform so many powerful
    signs.
    
>I'll give you this.  We obviously read something quite different into the
>"Son of God" being the only begotten (not born, not created) of God.
    
    	Yes we do ... but it's YOUR view that is the stretch, for the
    relationship between fathers and sons in the real world clearly teaches
    that fathers come first, and sons second, whether there are many sons
    or only one.  With the one exception of Jesus being a "son" of David
    but also being his "lord" because of his being God's Messiah, sons are
    never equal to their fathers (let alone greater).
    
    	Angels are also "sons of God"; and the anointed disciples of Christ
    also have the privilege of being "sons of God."  Adam, when perfect,
    was also the "son of God".  Though sons may be equal among themselves,
    in all cases, sons have an inferior position in relation to the Father.
    
    
    								-mark.

    I Corinthians 2:5
    
    Nancy

    re .22 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>Read also Philippians 2:6 and 2:8, which puts Jesus' submission to the 
>Father in perspective.  It does not diminish his person in the Godhead.
>
>Philippians
>  6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
>God:
>  8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
>obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
    
    	It's funny how often the KJV is used when these verses are cited.
    The RSV reads:
    
    		"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours
    		in Christ Jesus, who although he was in the form
    		of God, did not count equality with God a thing
    		to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the
    		form of a servant, being born in the likeness of
    		men.  And being found in human form he humbled
    		himself and became obedient unto death, even death
    		on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him
    		and bestowed on him the name which is above every
    		name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should
    		bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    		and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    		to the glory of God the Father."
    
    Jesus wasn't God, but existed (while in heaven) "in the form of God."
    Since the idea of him being equal to God is discussed, he clearly is
    shown to be distinct from God [since what would be the point of saying
    that God wasn't equal to himself?] -- and it so happens that equality
    wasn't something he even attempted to grasp (meaning he didn't have it
    in the first place, and didn't try to take what wasn't his).
    
    	God is not in subjection to anyone, and therefore owes obedience to
    no one; yet Jesus "became obedient unto death".  Jesus didn't highly
    exalt himself, but "God highly exalted him."
    
    	The name Jesus has been given grants him great authority, but note
    that it's "to the glory of God the Father," not to the glory of Jesus
    Christ.  Furthermore, although "every knee" bends "at the name of
    Jesus", as Paul writes elsewhere, he isn't bending his knee to Jesus as
    the Sovereign of the Universe, but rather to "the Father", for he also
    said:
    
    		"For this reason [having to do with "the eternal
    		purpose which he [God] has realized in Christ
    		Jesus our Lord (v.11)] I bow my knees BEFORE THE
    		FATHER, from whom every family in heaven and on earth
    		is named ... that Christ may dwell in your hearts
    		through faith ... [that we may] know the love of
    		Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled
    		with the fullness of God."  (Eph 3:14,15,17,19 RSV)
    
    Christians 'bend their knee' in the name of Christ TO THE FATHER, who
    has been made king by God.
    
    	Does the fact that Jesus was given "the name which is above every
    name" mean he was given Jehovah's own name?"  No, because Paul also
    writes:
    
    		"For God has put all things in subjection under 
    		his feet [which has the same connotation of having
    		been given the name above every name].  But when
    		it says, "All things are put in subjection under
    		him," it is plain that he [God] is excepted who
    		put all things under him." (1Cor 15:27 RSV)
    
    In other words, it's "plain" that although we can say "all things" are
    in subjection to Jesus, Jesus himself is not God or equal to God, but
    is still in subjection to him.  Paul's words that follow prove this:
    
    		"When all things are subjected to him [Christ], 
    		then the Son himself will also be subjected to
    		him [God] who put all things under him, that God
    		may be everything to every one." (v.28 RSV)
    
    As highly exalted as Jesus is, it's an undeniable truth that the Bible
    nevertheless teaches that in his heavenly position, "the head of Christ
    is God" (1Cor 11:3 RSV).
    
    	If Christ IS God, how can one say, 'the head of God is God'?
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .30 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>>    As the "image of God" and the 'reflection' of the glory of God, Jesus
>>    is obviously NOT God; but is like God in so many ways that it's true to
>>    say he "bears the very stamp of his nature."  Thus Jesus could
>>    truthfully say to Philip that he who saw Jesus as seen his Father, for
>>    Jesus was the very image of his Father, God.
>
>No doubt you must realize how inflammatory your statements are here, Mark. (?)
    
    Mark, you need only get as inflamed as you want to be.  Surely you can
    figure that when I say, "Jesus is obviously NOT God," it's at least
    obvious *to me*.
    
    I don't get inflamed when you say "Jesus IS God," do I?  I mean, it's
    really what I expect to hear people in this conference say, and thus
    it's no great surprise.  Surely the Witness position is no great
    surprise to anyone, either.
    
    								-mark.

    >I don't get inflamed when you say "Jesus IS God," do I?  I mean,
    >it's
    >really what I expect to hear people in this conference say, and
    >thus
    >it's no great surprise.  Surely the Witness position is no great
    >surprise to anyone, either.
    
    It's not a question of surprise... it's a question of reverence to a
    most Holy God.
    
    If Jesus was not God made flesh, my question comes what purpose would
    the crucifixion have and how could a mere man be the Way, the Truth and
    the Life?

    re 130.31 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>John 20:28  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
    
    	Due to lack of time, I'm purposely skipping this one.

>2Peter 1:1  Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them
>that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of
>God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
    
    	The footnote in the Oxford Annoted RSV read:
    
    		Or *of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ*

>Titus 2:13  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
>great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
    
    	OARSV footnote:
    
    		Or *of the great God and our Savior*

>Hebrews 1:8  But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
>ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
    
    	OARSV footnote:
    
    		Or *God is thy throne*
    
    - - -
    	Regarding the above three verses, the grammar itself evidently 
    allows a translation that may be picked to suit one's theological
    views.
    - - -

>Jeremiah 23:6  In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
>safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR
>RIGHTEOUSNESS.
    
    		"In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem
    		will dwell securely.  And this is the name by which
    		*it* [Jerusalem] will be called: 'The LORD is our
    		righteousness.'"  (Jer 33:16 RSV)
    
    	Jer 23:6 is a reference to the "righteous Branch" of "David" (v.5
    RSV) who is "raised up" by "the LORD/Jehovah", who will "reign as king
    and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the
    land."  By context alone, the one "raised up" by Jehovah is not Jehovah
    himself, but is a king in the royal line of David.
    
    	However, if saying that his prophet title/name "The LORD is our
    righteousness" (RSV) means he is Jehovah, is Jerusalem (in 33:16) ALSO
    being identified as Jehovah?  Surely not.
    
    	As the footnote in the OARSV says:
    
    		"He will rule responsibly before God as a king,
    		not as a puppet (like Zedekiah)."
    
    At the time Jeremiah wrote this, Zekekiah was king, and was a wicked
    king at that.  Zedekiah means "Jehovah is righteous."  Through
    Jeremiah, Jehovah is making a word play on Zedekiah's name,
    sarcastically pointing out that Zedekiah himself was far from a
    righteous king, and far from Jehovah's own righteous standards.  As a
    contrast, the future "branch of David" would truly be righteous, and
    uphold Jehovah's own righteous standards.

>1John 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an
>understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is
>true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
    
    	I'll have to also save this one for later.
    
    								-mark.

Thanks Mark S. for stepping in.

But to others, how does the saying go, "hold your horses".

What's going on? The note string between myself and others was moved via
Mod action to this note and yet my intent was not to discuss whether or not 
Jesus is God but to discuss obedience to him.

To put it in a nutshell, Mark M's note in 128.2 caught my eye, and what I am
asking is "Is it lawful to tell others Jesus Christ's teachings and observe 
his commandments?". Ofcourse one should make God and Jesus Christ known, this
is not being disputed. But "Not His teachings" is contradicting what Jesus
commanded.

If the Lord Jesus Christ commands his disciples to teach "them to observe 
all the things I have commanded you" and someone else says "Not his teachings" 
then who should one listen to?. By listening to the second voice who is 
one following?. By listening to the first voice who is one following?. 

This notes conference is Bible based is it not?

Mark M, has replied to say that the most important commandment to fulfill
is to love God. I agree, but this should not be at the expense of overriding
other commandments. For example, would one be showing love of God if they
promoted or condoned the committing of adultery?. So why promote the opposite
of Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19,20?.

It could be that I am misunderstanding what Mark M is saying, for he might
not be promoting the non observance of Jesus' commandment to his disciples. 

Phil.

    re 130.40 (GLDOA::SLOMIANY)
    
>               -< Christianity is not an intellectual exercise. >-
    
    	True ... but it does (or at least *should*) require a certain
    amount of intellectual exercise, since faith shouldn't be just a
    feeling (since feelings can be misleading), but rather a solid
    conviction in certain things as being true, which is, at least in part,
    arrived at by study of and meditation upon the meaning of the
    Scriptures.
    
    								-mark.

Thanks Mark M. for posting those verses for me, I was rushing to go 
home yesterday.

Ref. 39

Funny how one can find all kinds of arguments when they want to 
believe differently than the Bible says...

The thing that amazes me and that I think every JW should question is
why all of a sudden the Bible translated differently? In other words,
why was first, the JW doctrine and then, the NWT? and how intellectual
    or what credentials did the translator of the NWT had?  

Now to my next question. There's no argument in that Jesus is the Son
(among all other names), where the argument comes is where it says: 
Jesus is God and yet is says in Isaiah 43:10

                   "You are my witness" declares the Lord, "and 
                    my servant whom I have chosen, so that you 
                    may know and belive me and understand that 
                    I am he. Before me no God was formed, nor 
                    will there be one after me."

So, how is it that Jesus is in the NWT *a god created or 
formed(which is the same)* when God the Father, himself, declares 
"Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me"?
When did the Lord Jehovah change his mind? Does it say?   

                  

>               -< Christianity is not an intellectual exercise. >-

True.  But this is a foundational belief to Christianity: that Jesus
is very God and very man

                      ARTICLE II: JESUS CHRIST

   We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God-
   head; that he was eternally one with the Father; that he became
   incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary, so
   that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead
   and manhood, are thus united in one person very God and very man,
   the God-man.

   We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly
   arose from the dead and took again his body, together with all
   things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith
   He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for
   us.

Three distinct persons of the Godhead, all God, all one: the Trinity.

1 John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Mtc (count on it)

 Re .43



   There were some very serious allegations regarding the credentials of the
 translators of the NWT in (I believe) 1952 in which at least one of the 
 translators who claimed to be a Greek Scholar, admitted under cross examination
 that he had no training whatsoever in Greek.  I have the documentation at 
 home and would be happy to post it.



 

 Jim

 I also recall reading (again I have the info at home I believe) that the NWT
 has been revised several times to "correct" passages that are not in line with
 the doctrine of the of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which in my mind brings the
 question also raised in .43 around which came first..the doctrine or the NWT?





 Jim

Re .36 Hi Mark,

>	God is not in subjection to anyone, and therefore owes obedience to
>    no one; yet Jesus "became obedient unto death".  Jesus didn't highly
>    exalt himself, but "God highly exalted him."

Whereas I might agree (on the surface) with your statement, even you must
admit that God could place Himself in subjection to anyone He wishes, couldn't
He?  He owes His obedience to noone, but He could give obedience to anyone
He likes, couldn't He?  Or is something impossible for God to do?  That God
submitted Himself to suffer death (the Creator for the creation, the Sinless
for the sinful) is, if not in fact certainly in theory, possible.  Afteral,
nothing (even this) is impossible for God.

So, maybe the question isn't: is it *possible* for God to submit Himself to 
death? but: did He?  Sorry, if that doesn't make sense to you, but some things
in the Bible are mysteries.  And the mystery of godliness (that God was man-
ifested in the flesh...1 Tim. 3:16) is one of them.

Could you dissect the following verses for me in such a way that they do NOT
imply two Jehovahs?  They're both from Zecharia, and I'm using the KJV (sorry,
it's the only one I have at work).  The notes in my Bible say that where "LORD"
comes in the text, the Hebrew 'jhvh' is in the original.

     2:8 For thus saith the LORD (jhvh) of hosts; After the  glory  hath
     he  sent  me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he that
     toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
     2:9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and  they
     shall  be  a spoil to their servants; and ye shall know that
     the LORD (jhvh) of hosts hath sent me.

     10:12 And I will strengthen them in the LORD (jhvh); and they shall
     walk up and down in his name, saith the LORD (jhvh).

I'm sure you'll be able to find a way to dissect them such that some "other"
Jehovah did not send Jehovah to spoil the nations that touched the apple of 
His (the "other" Jehovah's) eye.  And such that Jehovah isn't talking about
strengthening them in another Jehovah such that they would walk around in 
this other Jehovah's name.

Thanks,

Rob

================================================================================
Note 130.33  ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?"   79 lines   5-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    To reiterate, the main point was that the scripture says that
>    Nicodemus and others recognized that Jesus was "from God" and that God
>    was "with" him.  There's NO argument from silence about this.

The argument is not how Nicodemus saw it, Mark S. but whether his perception
was clear.  Peter didn't have a clear picture of the gospel until he had a
vision of a sheet being lowered out of heaven.  Nicodemus knew that Jesus was
"from God" and this is true and in keeping with "the only begotten" of the
Father.  Your argument of silence is by implying that this means that Jesus was
ONLY from God and not God himself.  (BTW, I'm not arguing *from these verses*
that it says Jesus was God; you brought up the verses with the implication
which I show to be [generously] an interpretation you hold.)

>    Jesus came right out and said that the God that the Jews claimed to
>    worship was his Father.  Given the plainness of his language, it's
>    obvious that Jesus was NOT including himself in any sort of trinitarian
>    Godhead, so that he too was actually their God.

This is rubbish because it does not take into consideration that Jesus
proceeded out of God (begotten, not created).  All the verses you speak of
merely point the distinctions of the focal point: the One True God.

>       Furthermore, note that Jesus said, "If I glorify myself, my glory
>    is nothing."  If Jesus WAS God, any glory he gave himself certainly
>    WOULD have been SOMETHING, and not "nothing."

Again you deny the Scriptures that say that Jesus made himself nothing for us.

Philippians
  6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with

>       It's funny how often the KJV is used when these verses are cited.

You want other translations?

NIV "...being in the very nature God,"

NASB "...existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a
thing to be grasped."

Amplified: "...being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing
the fullness of the attributes which make God God.],

>>I'll give you this.  We obviously read something quite different into the
>>"Son of God" being the only begotten (not born, not created) of God.
>
>       Yes we do ... but it's YOUR view that is the stretch, for the
>    relationship between fathers and sons in the real world clearly teaches
>    that fathers come first, and sons second, whether there are many sons
>    or only one.  With the one exception of Jesus being a "son" of David
>    but also being his "lord" because of his being God's Messiah, sons are
>    never equal to their fathers (let alone greater).

Here you use the finite to describe the infinite.  If I stretch, YOU LIMIT
to human understanding.  The Bible tells of the ever-existant Jesus, God made
flesh at a point in human history.

>       Angels are also "sons of God"; and the anointed disciples of Christ
>    also have the privilege of being "sons of God."  Adam, when perfect,
>    was also the "son of God".  Though sons may be equal among themselves,
>    in all cases, sons have an inferior position in relation to the Father.

All of these are distinct from THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.  In just about
every translation Son is captialized when referring to Jesus, versus being sons
and daughters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.36

>    Jesus wasn't God, but existed (while in heaven) "in the form of God."
>    Since the idea of him being equal to God is discussed, he clearly is
>    shown to be distinct from God [since what would be the point of saying
>    that God wasn't equal to himself?] -- and it so happens that equality
>    wasn't something he even attempted to grasp (meaning he didn't have it
>    in the first place, and didn't try to take what wasn't his).

Distinct yes.  So is the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father.  But fully God,
also.

Amplified: "...being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing
the fullness of the attributes which make God God.],

>       If Christ IS God, how can one say, 'the head of God is God'?

Because of the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  These three are
One.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.37

>    I don't get inflamed when you say "Jesus IS God," do I?  I mean, it's
>    really what I expect to hear people in this conference say, and thus
>    it's no great surprise.  Surely the Witness position is no great
>    surprise to anyone, either.

The Jehovah's Witness position is no great surprise but it IS STILL
inflammatory in a conference where the foundation of the conference is that
Jesus IS God.  By definition of this conference premise, you present a heresy.
Were this a Jehovah's Witness conference, instead of a Christian conference,
the shoe might be on the other foot.

================================================================================
Note 130.39 ILLUSN::SORNSON

>>John 20:28  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
>
>       Due to lack of time, I'm purposely skipping this one.
>
>1John 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an
>understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is
>true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
>
>       I'll have to also save this one for later.

We'll wait.

>>2Peter 1:1  Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them
>>that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of
>>God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
>
>       The footnote in the Oxford Annoted RSV read:
>
>               Or *of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ*

Amplified, NASB, and NIV say "God and Savior"; KJV says "God and our Savior".


>>Titus 2:13  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
>>great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
>
>       OARSV footnote:
>
>               Or *of the great God and our Savior*

Amplified, NASB, and NIV say "God and Savior"; KJV says "God and our Savior".

>>Hebrews 1:8  But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
>>ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
>
>       OARSV footnote:
>
>               Or *God is thy throne*

    - - -
        Regarding the above three verses, the grammar itself evidently
    allows a translation that may be picked to suit one's theological
    views.
    - - -

******************  Not so evident with Hebrews 1:8  ***********************

Amplified:
But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and forever
(to the ages of the ages)....

NASB:
But of the Son, *He says* (indicating italics),
  THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND FOREVER,...

NIV:
But about the Son he says,
  Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,


Your translation's footnote is in opposition to what these other translations
are saying what God says:

Also verse 6 of Hebrews:
"...let all God's angels worship him."

Who is it that gets worship?  No one but God, yet God makes this proclamation
to worship the Son.

-----------------------------
>>Jeremiah 23:6  In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
>>safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR
>>RIGHTEOUSNESS.
>
>               "In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem
>               will dwell securely.  And this is the name by which
>               *it* [Jerusalem] will be called: 'The LORD is our
>               righteousness.'"  (Jer 33:16 RSV)

Here you sideswipe the issue by bringing in a different subject but similar
language.  The verse in 23:6 has no "it" associated with it (as 33:16 does),
but a clear and distinctive "He."  (Nice deflection, though.  Good one.)

Romans 3:22  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

================================================================================
Note 130.41    YERKLE::YERKESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>What's going on?
>
>To put it in a nutshell, Mark M's note in 128.2 caught my eye, and what I am
>asking is "Is it lawful to tell others Jesus Christ's teachings and observe
>his commandments?".

It went beyond this, Phil.  The person of Jesus Christ and Who He is is central
to the theme of 128.2 which sparked this whole outrageous debate over this
foundational tenet of faith.

>Of course one should make God and Jesus Christ known, this is not being
>disputed. But "Not His teachings" is contradicting what Jesus commanded.
>If the Lord Jesus Christ commands his disciples to teach "them to observe
>all the things I have commanded you" and someone else says "Not his teachings"
>then who should one listen to?. By listening to the second voice who is
>one following?. By listening to the first voice who is one following?.

Of course you have misunderstood that I never once implies that Jesus'
commandments should be followed.  Please read my notes with care.
It is a matter of priorities and focus.  If one is called of God (a
commandment) to sweep the streets but instead treks off to Africa on a mission
trip, then one is NOT in line with God's purpose for their life, correct?
SO... the PERSON Who gives the commandment is GREATER than the commandment
itself, for it is by the Authority of the person that the commandment is given
and TO THE PERSON that we obey the commandment.

>This notes conference is Bible based is it not?

You had better believe it!!!  The Authority on which the Bible stands is the
OBJECT of worship praise and honor.  Yes, people can elevate the Bible's
printed words and toss out the Object and Authority (Author) of the Bible.

>Mark M, has replied to say that the most important commandment to fulfill
>is to love God. I agree, but this should not be at the expense of overriding
>other commandments. For example, would one be showing love of God if they
>promoted or condoned the committing of adultery?. So why promote the opposite
>of Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19,20?.

Man, have you gone off the deep end in interpreting what I have said!
All I have said is that it is the Authority that MUST COME FIRST, even before
the commandments, which COME OUT OF the Authority and are never contradictory
to His nature nor other commandments.

One cannot countermand a command that comes from the Absolute Authority!
But it is the Absolute Authority and not the command that is the object of
obedience, worship, praise, etc.  Haven't I made this clear?

>It could be that I am misunderstanding what Mark M is saying, for he might
>not be promoting the non observance of Jesus' commandment to his disciples.

Way misunderstanding, and rather insulting after so long in this conference!

Mark

>Note 130.42                  
>ILLUSN::SORNSON 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    re 130.40 (GLDOA::SLOMIANY)
>    
>>               -< Christianity is not an intellectual exercise. >-
>    
>    	True ... but it does (or at least *should*) require a certain
>    amount of intellectual exercise, since faith shouldn't be just a
>    feeling (since feelings can be misleading), but rather a solid
>    conviction in certain things as being true, which is, at least in part,
>    arrived at by study of and meditation upon the meaning of the
>    Scriptures.
>    
>

	"At least in part"? An intellectual demands he understand everything 
within the scope of his own human mind. The Bible, when used properly, can 
be used to bring someone closer to God. It can also be used by a man to 
separate himself from God when that person demands that his study results in a 
complete logical understanding of who God is. The concept of the Trinity, for 
example, if considered from a purely "logical" point of view, could drive an
intellectual mad. Much better, then, to ignore it altogether (it makes 
understanding God so much easier....)

	Mark, instead of all this debate, why don't you ask God to
reveal His Son to you? Mark, I know Jesus is my Lord and Saviour,
not just because of what I read in the Bible (yes, I do read it), but also
because I KNOW. He is not just my God - He is also my friend. 
I sincerely wish the same for you. The beauty is, a person with no schooling
is on the same level as a professor of theology when it comes to the
most important thing of all - asking Jesus into your life. 



>Note 130.44                  I and my Father are One                    44 of 45
>TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers"       26 lines   6-MAY-1993 09:56
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>               -< Christianity is not an intellectual exercise. >-
>
>True.  But this is a foundational belief to Christianity: that Jesus
>is very God and very man
>
>                      ARTICLE II: JESUS CHRIST
> etc...

	Sounds good to me! And I won't even translate it to Greek
before I believe it!


P.S. I'm just about to leave to be out of town for a while, and probably
     won't be back until mid-June, so I won't be able to answer any more
     replies,


	I love you all with the love Jesus put in my heart,


	Bob

    re .43 (POWDML::ESTEVEZ)

    [I usually include first names, but I don't know your first name.]

>Ref. 39
>
>Funny how one can find all kinds of arguments when they want to 
>believe differently than the Bible says...

    	It's not a matter of "finding arguments," but rather finding
    evidence, and then giving due consideration to its implications.

    	It's true that Jehovah's Witnesses use the NWT, but in case you
    haven't noticed, I haven't once used it in this discussion.  The RSV
    which I've referred to is the Revised Standard Version, which bears the
    'pedigree' of orthodox theology and scholarship, and lays claim to the
    heritage of 'faithful descent' from the religious tradition of the King
    James Version.

    	What you call "arguments" which I just happen to be "finding" are
    objective, alternate renderings that very orthodox (trinitarian) scholars 
    candidly admit to.

>The thing that amazes me and that I think every JW should question is
>why all of a sudden the Bible translated differently? 

    	I really try not to be rude ... but *really* now; do you really
    think that the existence of the NWT is an overnight sensation, an
    all-of-a-sudden, lets-be-the-first-to-change-the-one-true-Bible
    translation that was produced to say 'in your eye' to the 'only-
    translation-of-the-Bible-that-we-need'?

    	Orthodox, trinitarian Christendom has been producing new
    translations of the Bible over the last, say 200 years, at quite a
    clip, both by committee and by single-man effort.

    	In the lineage of the KJV, there have been the English Revised
    Version (RV), the American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard
    Version (RSV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), and the most
    recent New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), with their cousins the New
    English Bible and Revised English Bible, and their other cousins the
    New King James Version and the KJ II.  [These are 'Protestant'
    Versions].  Perhaps the popular New International Version fits in this
    family tree as well (though I don't know ... and really, it doesn't
    matter, for my point isn't accuracy in translation lineage, but rather
    to show that translations abound).

    	Since the days of the Douay Version (a translation of the Latin
    Vulgate), the Catholic Church has produced the Confraternity Version,
    the New American Bible (NAB), the revised NAB, and at least given some
    sanction to the paraphrased Living Bible and the French Jerusalem Bible
    and New Jerusalem Bible.

    	There are also literally hundreds of other lone-man and by-
    committee translations (Rotherham, Weymouth, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Wuest,
    Knox, Beck, Williams, 20th Century NT, Amplified Bible, New Century
    Version, Berkley Version, and the list goes on and on, and I haven't
    even mentioned any of the Jewish translations or English translations
    of other language translations of both OT and NT).

    	By and large, most of these are considered quite credible by
    orthodox sources.

>                                                      In other words,
>why was first, the JW doctrine and then, the NWT? and how intellectual
>    or what credentials did the translator of the NWT had?  

    	Pardon me for using the following stock answer (of mine) ... but
    the Bible itself indicates that at the very birth of Christianity, God
    chose to use those who were considered "uneducated, common men" (Act
    4:13 RSV) by the religious elite [authority figures] of the day.  Paul
    later wrote that God deliberately chose

    		"not many [who were] wise according to worldly
    		standards ... [but rather] what is low and despised
    		in the world ... so that no human being might
    		boast in the presence of God." (1Cor 1:26a,28a,29 RSV)

    If "intellectual" and/or 'scholarly' "credentials" are what is most
    important to you, then you'll never accept what Jehovah's Witnesses
    produce and/or say, since we don't "boast" of any such "intellectual"
    merit or stamp of 'authorized' "credentials".

    	People complained that Jesus himself didn't go to the "schools" of
    learning in his day, and thus sport the seal-of-approval from the
    contemporay religious authorities, but Jesus himself only pointed to the
    fundamental righteousness of his teachings (which he said the Father
    taught him) and to the results of his works (in his Father's name) as
    proof that his works were truly authorized by God.
    
    							[continued ...]

    re .43 (POWDML::ESTEVEZ) [...continued]

>Now to my next question. There's no argument in that Jesus is the Son
>(among all other names), where the argument comes is where it says: 
>Jesus is God and yet is says in Isaiah 43:10
>
>                   "You are my witness" declares the Lord, "and 
>                    my servant whom I have chosen, so that you 
>                    may know and belive me and understand that 
>                    I am he. Before me no God was formed, nor 
>                    will there be one after me."

    	The whole point of God's complaint against the people was that they
    were turning to false worship of non-extistant, pagan gods ("strange
    gods" v.12 RSV), and ignoring the truth that Jehovah himself was not
    only very real, but had actively (in the past) saved them from very
    real trouble that they were in.  They were turning from the very one
    who "created" them, and turning to mere figments of imagination.

    	In other contexts, the Scriptures use the term "god/gods" to apply
    to angels and earthly, theocratic judges who were so appointed by God.
    When Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming, "I am the Son of
    God," (John 10:36 RSV), Jesus pointed out:

    		"Is it not written in your law [Ps 82:6], 'I said, 
    		you are gods'?  If he [God] called gods to whom	
    		the word of God came (and scripture cannot
    		be broken), do you say of him whom the Father
    		consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are
    		blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the 
    		Son of God'?" (John 10:34-36 RSV)

    Not all, but a good many orthodox scholars say that the Psalm was
    addressing the human judges who were supposed to be judging according
    to God's Law, but who had 'fallen down on the job.'  Jesus was pointing
    out that since the scripture clearly sanctions calling others "gods"
    (though in a sense subordinate to the sense that we call Jehovah
    "God"), they should have had no Scripturally-based reason for accusing
    him for being God's Son.

>So, how is it that Jesus is in the NWT *a god created or 
>formed(which is the same)* when God the Father, himself, declares 
>"Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me"?
>When did the Lord Jehovah change his mind? Does it say?

    	In the Greek language, the word "god" didn't just apply to Jehovah
    God (for the Greeks were obviously not Jews), but rather was used both
    as a title for their mythical gods (who lived in the heavens), and as a
    term which described their nature (i.e., Zeus, et. al were gods just as
    we here on earth are humans); thus one could even say that angels were
    "gods", since they lived in the divine heavenly realm, and not the
    earthly realm of humans.  It's rather similar to the way we, in
    English, say Jehovah and the angels are 'spirits'.  [In English, today,
    we usually *don't* say they are "gods" because we don't use the English
    word "god" in the same way ... but in Greek, they did.]

    	The NWT says Jesus was "a god" because it's the most literal and
    dirct way to translate the idea John was conveying, which was that
    Jesus existed in heaven as a divine being.  In fact, one Catholic Bible
    dictionary I have says John 1:1 literally means "the word was a divine
    being" (I'll find the reference if you really want it).  Some
    translators (Moffatt, Goodspeed) say John 1:1 means "the word was
    divine".  Others say 'the word had the same nature as God' (Barclay and
    Wuest, I think).  The NEB and REB say, "what God was, the Word was" --
    meaning that God and the Word were alike in that they were both "gods,"
    or divine beings in heaven.

    	John's overall point was simply to teach (as Paul also did) that 
    Jesus existed 'in the form of God' (cf. Phil 2) before he came to
    earth.  It wasn't an idea that competed with the truth that Jehovah is
    the 'one True God' (for Jesus himself said his Father was "the only
    true God" [John 17:3], and that he was the one whom his Father had
    "sent" in his service); but in and of itself, it certainly was a novel
    idea, for the Jews found it hard to believe that the Messiah they were
    awaiting wasn't a mere man like themselves.  In fact, at least one
    thread of Jewish tradition taught that God had no son (because of Isa
    43:10), and thus, for Jesus to then come out and claim to be God's Son
    (from heaven), one easily imagines the impact such a claim had.

    								-mark.

    Bob, what a beautiful message! You brought tears to my eyes...
    
    The message of salvation can't be any more clearer than this. 
    
    It's so wonderful to know that God is not impressed by how intellectual
    one can be, or what title he/she possess, it's the disposition to 
    serve Him and let Him into one's heart that matters.
    
    Have a nice time off!
    Love,
    Josie

    This topic thread, enjoyable though it is, is starting to get too much
    for me to respond to in a timely fashion.  I have a real job, and other
    things to tend to as well, that force me to take a respite (until next
    week ... unless the temptation to reply becomes too great :-).
    
    I just want to make one more replie, however, re 130.50 by
    TOKNOW::METCALFE (Mark).
    
    In 130.39 I typed in the footnotes from ONE translation which give
    alternate renderings to the 'pro-trinity' renderings that appear in
    many popular translations.
    
    Mark entered renderings from a few other popular translations [which
    matched the meanings from the translation he first quoted from] and 
    then said:
    
>Your translation's footnote is in opposition to what these other translations
>are saying what God says:
    
    One more time, I'd like to point out, loudly, and with pugnacity, that
    the translation I was quoting from, what Mark has just called "your
    translation" (or, I suppose, 'my translation'), is actually the REVISED
    STANDARD VERSION, and bears the mark of all the orthodox, trinitarian,
    fully accreditted  scholars that one could ever want to see (in a short
    time) -- a veritable 'Who's Who' of Christendom's finest.  It's only
    'my' translation because I have a copy of it.  It is NOT a translation
    published and/or pushed by Jehovah's Witnesses.
    
    You're quite right that these footnotes, from this very 'true blue'
    orthodox Bible are "in opposition to what these other translations
    [that you've quoted] say."  Well, good morning!!!  all ... imagine
    that!  A trinitarian scholar (really a whole raft of them) admitting
    that alternate translations are possible that contradict the
    trinitarian party line!
    
    I have at least a dozen equally 'true blue' translations with similar
    notes, all from trinitarian scholars who happen to be confessing (maybe
    while hoping none of you all are watching) that other translations of
    some of these 'old favorites' are both possible and valid.  They don't,
    of course, all have the same notes on the same verses; but taken
    collectively, there's plenty of overlap.
    
    It doesn't matter how many popular translations exist that ONLY use the
    most pro-trinity translation of these verses.  The truth is that these
    other translations DO exist as well, and show, either in the main text
    or in their footnotes, that fully acreditted scholars recognize the
    validity of these other renderings.
    
    As I remarked in a previous reply in another note, some translations,
    like the Amplified Bible, freely go way out of their way to push
    pro-trinity theology by way of translation [really doing more
    interpretation than translation].  Of course, no one here would
    complain because these translations support the party line.  Who would
    think that it might be *they* that are taking liberties with the true
    underlying text!
    
    Of Hebrews 1:8, and what the RSV footnote that I entered says, Mark
    wrote:
    
>******************  Not so evident with Hebrews 1:8  ***********************
    ...
>Your translation's footnote is in opposition to what these other translations
>are saying what God says:
    
    Again, it's NOT *MY* translation.  But, next week (when I have time),
    just to prove my point, I'll dig out (and edit) some stuff on Heb 1:8
    that I already have on-line about this verse which proves that I'm not
    just making this stuff up as I go.
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .44 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>Three distinct persons of the Godhead, all God, all one: the Trinity.
>
>1 John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
>Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    
    	That's funny, the New American Standard Version says verses 7 and 8 
    read:
    
    		"And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the
    		Spirit is the truth.  For there are three that bear
    		witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; adn
    		the three are in agreement."
    
    There's no mention of "the FAther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" being
    "one".  Could it be, Mark, that you are using a *twisted translation?*  
    
    * * *
    
    	Really now, did you think you could hoodwink me by quoting the KJV
    with the infamous "Johaninne Comman" -- that spurious phrase that
    almost all modern scholars recognize as a medieval invention and
    insertion into the text (having originated in the Latin, not the
    Greek)?
    
    								-mark.

re .51

Mark,

;Of course you have misunderstood that I never once implies that Jesus'
;commandments should be followed.  Please read my notes with care.

Reading the above with care , you mean "should not be followed" -). Notes
is not the easiest medium to discuss things.

;Man, have you gone off the deep end in interpreting what I have said!
;All I have said is that it is the Authority that MUST COME FIRST, even before
;the commandments, which COME OUT OF the Authority and are never contradictory
;to His nature nor other commandments.

But, the authority is already in place....prior to Jesus command to make
disciples he said "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the
earth." Matthew 28:18 which is in context with the instruction to make
disciples and teach them to observe his commandments. Are you saying that 
people need to recognise that authority before being taught what is expected
of them by this authority?.

Phil. 

    re .45 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>  There were some very serious allegations regarding the credentials of the
>translators of the NWT in (I believe) 1952 in which at least one of the 
>translators who claimed to be a Greek Scholar, admitted under cross examination
>that he had no training whatsoever in Greek.  I have the documentation at 
>home and would be happy to post it.
    
    	You don't mean that Scottish trial (of a Witness who was seeking
    a ministerial exemption from the British draft), do you?  The one in
    which Fred Franz gave testimony?
    
    	If so, I invite you to read it *carefully* (I have ... I have
    copies of the relevant portions as well).
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .46 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
> I also recall reading (again I have the info at home I believe) that the NWT
> has been revised several times to "correct" passages that are not in line with
> the doctrine of the of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which in my mind brings the
> question also raised in .43 around which came first..the doctrine or the NWT?
    
    	Oh, how allegations are sooo easy to make without substantiation!
    
    - - -
    
    	The NWT *has* been revised since 1951, but only in relatively minor
    ways, as far as I can tell.  There have been NO 'major reversals' that
    I know of.  Can you cite specifics?
    
    	You haven't ever wondered why the Revised Version exists, or the
    American Standard Version exists, or the Revised Standard Version
    exists, or the New Revised Standard Version exists, have you?  You
    don't suppose they exists because orthodox religions have been
    "correcting" passages that "are not in line with the doctrine of
    orthodox religions", do you?
    
    								-mark.

Mark S.,

>    	It's not a matter of "finding arguments," but rather finding
>   evidence, and then giving due consideration to its implications.

    Perhaps I could've used another word, and you could also (as you did)...    

>    	It's true that Jehovah's Witnesses use the NWT, but in case you
>   haven't noticed, I haven't once used it in this discussion.  
 
     I did noticed you didn't use it, but isn't the *best translation*
     in your opinion?
    

>    	I really try not to be rude ... but *really* now; do you really
>   think that the existence of the NWT is an overnight sensation, an
>   all-of-a-sudden, lets-be-the-first-to-change-the-one-true-Bible
>   translation that was produced to say 'in your eye' to the 'only-
>   translation-of-the-Bible-that-we-need'?


        I try not to be rude either, myself, and sorry if I offend you,
        but I still think it's funny how first it was the doctrine and
        then the translation.

>    	Orthodox, trinitarian Christendom has been producing new
>   translations of the Bible over the last, say 200 years, at quite a
>   clip, both by committee and by single-man effort.

        Agreed! but have they been as different in context, as the NWT?



>    	Pardon me for using the following stock answer (of mine) ... but
>   the Bible itself indicates that at the very birth of Christianity, God
>   chose to use those who were considered "uneducated, common men" (Act
>   4:13 RSV) by the religious elite [authority figures] of the day.  Paul
>   later wrote that God deliberately chose

>   		"not many [who were] wise according to worldly
>   		standards ... [but rather] what is low and despised
>   		in the world ... so that no human being might
>   		boast in the presence of God." (1Cor 1:26a,28a,29 RSV)

>   If "intellectual" and/or 'scholarly' "credentials" are what is most
>   important to you, then you'll never accept what Jehovah's Witnesses
>   produce and/or say, since we don't "boast" of any such "intellectual"
>   merit or stamp of 'authorized' "credentials".


    I never said it did, in fact as I said in my reply to Bob, God is 
    not impressed by titles or human intellectuality. To understand or 
    be chosen by God one doesn't need be an intellectual (thank God, or it 
    would leave me out), but to translate the Word of God, one *must* have 
    the credentials (or schooling to do so). Why is it that the NWT is 
    anonymous? It's not a matter of boasting on one's intellectual abilities, 
    but simply publicizing the credentials *to translate* if they're in 
    question, so that people can choose of who's more knowledgable of the 
    *language(s)*. 

    I will not comment on your second message to me, since you're basing 
    your interpretation of Isaiah 43:10 on JW's doctrine (which I obviouly 
    reject). If anyone else would like to comment on it, they're welcome to.

    Now back to the subject...

    -Josie

     
    
    			

================================================================================
Note 130.58  YERKLE::YERKESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .51

Mark,

>;Of course you have misunderstood that I never once implies that Jesus'
>;commandments should be followed.  Please read my notes with care.
>
>Reading the above with care , you mean "should not be followed" -). Notes
>is not the easiest medium to discuss things.

This is an unfortunate typographical error due to the flurry of keystroke
not recording all my thoughts.  Unfortunate that it happens here, but I
believe I had no such typos in the other texts I wrote that you misunderstood.

>But, the authority is already in place....prior to Jesus command to make
>disciples he said "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the
>earth." Matthew 28:18 which is in context with the instruction to make
>disciples and teach them to observe his commandments. Are you saying that
>people need to recognise that authority before being taught what is expected
>of them by this authority?

Recognition of the authority is NOT the point, (at least not the way *I think*
you imply it).  The person of GOD MUST BE THE OBJECT of obedience before one
can obey a command.  One MUST be obedient in attitude to God before the command
is given to "sweep streets."  A perfect example of following the commandment
without following the person is where Jesus chides the Pharisees for tithing
their mint and cummin but neglecting the weightier things of the law; for
saying, what I would have used to take care of my parents I have committed to
God.  These examples show how focus on the law, the rules, the commandments
has TAKEN precedence over the PERSON Who gave the commandments.  When the
PERSON is focused upon, then "these ought ye do, without neglecting the former"
will occur.

Cool it folks.  We're noting emotive stuff here.  

We've been round this one plenty of times historically, and the exasperation
is understandable, but even so, has to be contained. 

Please ensure that prayer is engaged before pressing keys.  
Seriously.  No smileys at all.  Except that I love you all.

							Andrew Yuille
							co-moderator.

    re .47 (DREUL1::rob)
    
    OK ... is *really* my last reply for now.
    
    Re Zech 2:8 ...
    
>     2:8 For thus saith the LORD (jhvh) of hosts; After the  glory  hath
>     he  sent  me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he that
>     toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
>     2:9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and  they
>     shall  be  a spoil to their servants; and ye shall know that
>     the LORD (jhvh) of hosts hath sent me.
>
>     10:12 And I will strengthen them in the LORD (jhvh); and they shall
>     walk up and down in his name, saith the LORD (jhvh).
>
>I'm sure you'll be able to find a way to dissect them such that some "other"
>Jehovah did not send Jehovah to spoil the nations that touched the apple of 
>His (the "other" Jehovah's) eye.  And such that Jehovah isn't talking about
>strengthening them in another Jehovah such that they would walk around in 
>this other Jehovah's name.
    
    	There are 18 places in the Masoretic text which contain
    modifications to the main text which were made by ancient Jewish
    scribes who felt that that literal readings in some way ascribed
    blasphemy or disrespect to God.  They are formally called the
    "Emendations of the Sopherim" [Corrections of the Scribes].
    
    	Zech 2:8 happens to contain one of those 18 emendations (for which
    the original reading has been preserved in the margin of the Hebrew
    text).
    
    	The emended text says "his eye", whereas the original reading said
    "my eye"; thus there is no "other Jehovah" whose eye is being touched.
    
    	Most translations seem to stick strictly to the Masoretic main text
    and ignore the original reading; but it's true none-the-less that the
    main text has been changed (and that these changes are documented).
    
    	I'm not clear on your point about 10:12, since walking in Jehovah's
    name is a common expression that relates to a course of
    action/worship that is in harmony with Jehovah's will.  It doesn't mean
    that the one so walking is some "other Jehovah".
    
    							-mark.

RSV (Revised Standard Version), 1952
  - Revision of the American Standard Version (which was the American
    revision of the Revised Version) from the Critical Text
  - Preferred LXX to Masoretic Text
  - Used by scholars but has a liberal bent

      Hi,
    
        Its kind of nice to sit back and relax while reading a topic
        like this.
    
        Just a couple thoughts...
    
        re: .40
        I just can't agree with that and I think maybe it just wasn't
        expressed right.  Without rational thought, Christianity has no
        basis.  Intelligence is a prerequisite to the Christian experience.
        Maybe you meant that *more* is required?  Like "faith which
        worketh by agape?" (Gal 5:6).  Could that be what you meant to
        say?
    
        I do happen to think the idea of Christ laying aside certain 
        attributes in being "made man" is something that perhaps you guys
        (Mark S and Phil) don't 'bring to the table' when you portray the
        context of scriptures pertaining to Christ during His earthly
        mission.
    
        If I was a Witness, I would have a tendency to recoil from people
        saying what I believed or said was "rubbish" and "inflammatory"
        and I see no virtue in writing this way Mark Metcalfe.  Does such
        terminology safeguard one from suddenly believing Christ is not
        God?  What does it accomplish?  I see nothing save for perhaps the
        hardening of a heart or two.
    
        For a nonscriptural reply, but an agape-based one I believe that
        the principle reason Jesus the sacrifice had to be God is because
        the perfect Mediator is "both of one."  The best possible Mediator
        between man and God is one who is both man (as man is in his
        physical frailty - sinful flesh) and God.  I cannot comprehend that
        the greatest demonstration of agape (going to the cross and tasting
        death for every man) would be a demonstration performed by a
        created being.  God (who is agape) by virtue of who He is simply
        had to Himself be the ultimate expression of who He is.
    
        I HAVE to throw this in!
    
        Trying to prove Jesus is not God would be like trying to prove
        eternal consciouss torment!!  ;-)
    
        The Word of God guided by the leadings of the Spirit will always
        lead to truth and (of course) it will be consistent with who God
        is - agape.
    
                                                      So Long,
    
                                                      Tony
    
        performed

===============================================================================
Note 130.56 ILLUSN::SORNSON
               -< it's time to take the blinders off, folks ... >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    You're quite right that these footnotes, from this very 'true blue'
>    orthodox Bible are "in opposition to what these other translations
>    [that you've quoted] say."  Well, good morning!!!  all ... imagine
>    that!  A trinitarian scholar (really a whole raft of them) admitting
>    that alternate translations are possible that contradict the
>    trinitarian party line!

Your interpretation, replete with its offensiveness, only sees the RSV
in light of the NWT.  I provided these other "orthodox" translations
to temper what is being said.  The NWT carries NO WEIGHT (especially
in this conference) and so you will use the RSV (as it has a liberal
bent).  Fine, but when viewed with the other "orthodox" versions, the
RSV indeed can (and I would daresay out of ignorance) DOES support the
trinitarian view, allowing for the footnoted POSSIBLE tranlsations!

===============================================================================
Note 130.57   ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?"   27 lines   
                          -< this is 1993, not 1611 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .44 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)

>>Three distinct persons of the Godhead, all God, all one: the Trinity.
>>
>>1 John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
>>Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
>
>       That's funny, the New American Standard Version says verses 7 and 8
>    read:
>
>               "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the
>               Spirit is the truth.  For there are three that bear
>               witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; adn
>               the three are in agreement."
>
>    There's no mention of "the FAther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" being
>    "one".  Could it be, Mark, that you are using a *twisted translation?*


Let's be even more funny.  To be more PRECISE: let's see verses 7 and
8 in context in the translations:

1 John 5

KJV:
7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
  8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Amplified:
And it is the (Holy) Spirit Who bears witness, because the (Holy)
Spirit is the Truth.  So there are three witnesses in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One; and
there are three witnesses on earth, the Spirit, the water and the
blood; and these three agreee -- are in unison, their testimony
coincides.

NASB:
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the
truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water
and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

NIV:
For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood;
and the three are in agreement.

Tony B (.66)

>        Trying to prove Jesus is not God would be like trying to prove
>        eternal consciouss torment!!  ;-)

Tony, this is rubbish!  But not inflammatory.  ;-)

MM

re .66 - I HAD to smile, Tony ... even as I threw out that sentence with 
the mis-spell... ;-)

Meanwhile, back into the fire...

The preponderance of translations is not to modify doctrine, but to clarify 
it.  The 'clarification' is sometimes correct, and sometimes incorrect.
Sometimes based upon new source document(s), and sometimes upon a change in
language.  I don't claim to be a textual authority, but the person of the
Holy Spirit is a witness in the heart of the believer to warn him of areas
of error. 

Inevitably, each translation (incredibly!) reflects the slant of the
translator's persuasion.  However, each new translation is usually pretty
quickly recognised as conforming to clear doctrine as already recognised,
or deviating from it.  This conference is based upon doctrine as generally 
understood from the KJV line, which has, as Mark S. pointed out, a 
considerable weight of support from subsequent versions.  

The differences in most 'accepted' translations does not change the
doctrines presented, even if a doctrine may not be included in all the same
places...

Not the mainstream of discussion, but a point I felt needed clarified.


							Andrew

I think the Johannine Comma is a devil's tool.  It clearly crept into
the texts later on; it cannot be found before the end of the 4th century
(although it reflects early 2nd century patristic writings); it is lacking
in more pre-1200 latin manuscripts than it is present.  Now, with more
careful scholarship, we are able to fall into the devil's trap: doubting
truth because in one place an additional reference to the truth was added
spuriously by later parties.

The fact that it is a spurious addition, however, does not smash the whole
doctrine of the Trinity.  There is adequate additional evidence that Jesus
is God and that the Holy Spirit is also a person of the Trinity elsewhere
in the Bible.

/john

.69 hidden, and the author notified...

						  Andrew
						Co-moderator

	Why do the Russelites try to dismiss the KJV in disputing their
	doctrine?  

	When Jesus calmed the waters, the Apostles worshipped Him.  Jesus
	accepted their worship.  Russelite doctrine would make Jesus a
	blasphemer as the Pharisees claimed.

	Consider a perfectly just Judge.  He must sentence those that
	appear before Him according to a strict standard.  This is a
	limitation He has imposed upon Himself.  An accuser brings before
	Him someone whom He loves beyond our capacity to understand.  The
	sentence for the crime of which the loved one is accused is death.
	The Judge can only perform His perfect justice if He sentences this
	one to the death he deserves, or to take the punishment Himself.
	In an act of love beyond our comprehension, the Judge condescends
	to take the place of the accused in the sentence of death, to
	justify His loved one before the accuser and the rest of creation.

        Russelite doctrine would have the Judge send the clerk of courts or
        the bailiff to justify the loved one.  They would have God send one
        of His many creations, an underling, to suffice as justification.
        This, of course, would not be perceived as fair by the accuser or
        his minion or the rest of creation.

        As a wife is coequal with her husband, and is considered by God as
        one flesh with him, yet the virtuous wife submits herself to her
        husband.  As Christ, who, as one with the Godhead, as coequal with
	the Father, submitted Himself to His Father that man would be
	justified.

	Tony
	

    re .73 (LEDDEV::CAMUSO)
    
>	Why do the Russelites try to dismiss the KJV in disputing their
>	doctrine?  
    
    	Russelite?  Who's a Russelite?  Someone in one of those early
    splinter groups which broke away in the early 1900's, which still keep
    Russell's writings in print (with modifications of their own)?
    
    	As for the KJV, it's not the ONLY English Bible translation ever
    printed.  There were more than a few which preceded it, and thousands
    more which followed it.  One doesn't have to "dismiss" the KJV so much
    as merely pick up some of these other ones and see what they have to
    say.
    
    	One might ask in return, why do certain trinitarians cling to the
    KJV so tightly when disputing (or arguing for) *their* doctrine?  Is
    the KJV to them as the NWT is (alleged to be) to Witnesses?
    
    								-mark.

>>    	Russelite?  Who's a Russelite?  Someone in one of those early
>>    splinter groups which broke away in the early 1900's, which still keep
>>    Russell's writings in print (with modifications of their own)?
    
        Aren't you a Russelite?  Isn't this warmed-over Russelite doctrine?
        Could've fooled me.

        Jesus accepted worship.  Every bible I've seen, even the New
        Watchtower Translation, is clear that only God can accept worship. 
        Do you make Him a blasphemer?

    re 130.75 (LEDDEV::CAMUSO)
    
>        Aren't you a Russelite?  Isn't this warmed-over Russelite doctrine?
>        Could've fooled me.
    
    	This is 1993.  I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses.  Are you an
    "Athenasianite"?
    
    	However, if it makes you feel more superior to put my religion down
    by calling me a Russelite, name-call away.  Usually name-calling is the
    refuge of bigots.

>        Jesus accepted worship.  Every bible I've seen, even the New
>        Watchtower Translation, is clear that only God can accept worship. 
>        Do you make Him a blasphemer?
    
    	I'm going to assume that you really know that NWT stands for New
    World Translation, and that you therefore obviously feel the need to
    sling put-downs to gain the cheering admiration of your friends.
    
    	Surely you know that the word often translated "worship" is a
    general term for showing honor and/or obeiscence to legitimate,
    superior authority (and not just to God alone).  As the Messiah, the
    anointed, kingly, "Chosen One" of God, the honor shown to Jesus was 
    legitimately due to him.  As the one greater than Solomon (or "more
    than Solomon"), just as people fell down before Solomon in worship to
    Jehovah, since Solomon "sat on Jehovah's throne", it was all the more
    appropriate for Jesus' first Jewish disciples to show their reverence
    to him (as the holder of the Messianic office) by bowing before him [as
    was the common eastern custom for honoring kingly dignitaries in
    general, to say nothing of honoring the long awaited "Son of David" who
    was so appointed by Jehovah].
    
    	All worship rightfully belongs to God, but worship of God can be
    shown by honoring those whom Jehovah annoints as his Representatives,
    according to ancient custom.  It is no more blasphemy for one to bow
    before Christ in recognition of his being Jehovah's Representative than
    it ever was for any righteous man of old to bow before Jehovah's angel
    when he appeared as Jehovah's messenger.
    
    	There's a difference between honoring the messenger, and honoring
    the originator of the message through the messenger, even though both
    forms of honor [one undue, the other legitimate] may be shown by the
    same act.
    
    
    								-mark.

.76> Mark S

Did they worship Jesus, or God through Jesus?  You say the latter.
What does the letter say?

You spout a lot of words about worshippig God through Solomon, 
but it only deflects from the point at hand: the discisples worshipping
Jesus.

MM

    -mark S.
    
    You still haven't answered my question a way back... 
    
    If Jesus is not God then how could He be the Way, the Truth and the
    Life?  How could a mere *chosen* man be our salvation?
    
    Nancy

>>    	This is 1993.  I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses.  Are you an
>>    "Athenasianite"?
>>    
>>    	However, if it makes you feel more superior to put my religion down
>>    by calling me a Russelite, name-call away.  Usually name-calling is the
>>    refuge of bigots.

        My, aren't we sensitive!  I sensed an elitist, derogatory flavor to
        your references to us as "trinitarians", and in your "laughing" at
        the KJV.  Though I do not consider it insulting to be referenced as
	trinitarian, I detected a snide demeanor in your notes.
	
        Indeed, my American Heritage Dictionary defines a bigot as one who
        is intolerant in matters of religion, race, and politics.  As
        Christians, we are not to tolerate sin.  I don't consider myself
        bigoted with respect to race.  However, I consider your doctrine a
        "doctrine of devils", as well you must consider the doctrine of the
        Trinity.  Yours is Russelite doctrine, as he was the originator of
        it, to the best of my knowledge.  You may call trinitarian doctrine
        by whatever other moniker amuses you.  

        Indeed, what you have is a religion.  A works salvation.  Man
        reaching up to God.  What we "trinitarians" believe is that
        religion does not save.  Works do not save.  Jesus does.  Jesus is
        God in a man's body suffering, without sinning, the temptations and
        trials and death of man to justify man before creation.  

	In Revelation, John bowed to worship the angel, who was quick to
	correct him.  Wasn't this angel just another messenger of God,
	worthy to accept worship in His name, according to your definition?
	Why would he not accept the worship of John, when Jesus had?
	Aren't you confusing obeisance to monarchs with worship of God?

	Tony
	

    I know ... I'm obviously still here ...
    
    re 130.77 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>Did they worship Jesus, or God through Jesus?  You say the latter.
>What does the letter say?
    
    	At this point, why ask me any more questions?  I've already
    explained my views.  Although many translators show that they interpret
    the honor shown to Jesus as "worship", others show that the word used
    does not have a single, obligatory definition of "worship", but rather
    the more generic idea of "homage."
    
    	For instance, at Matt 9:18, where the KJV says that Jairus came to
    Jesus and "worshipped him" (while begging that Jesus heal his
    daughter), the NASB says he "bowed down before him"; Williams'
    translation says he "fell on his knees"; Beck's says he "bowed down low
    to the ground"; and Weymouth's says he was "profoundly bowing".
    
    	I see no conflict with people bowing before Jesus to show their
    deep respect and the fact that God ought to be "worshipped" (as we use
    the word in English).  Honoring Jesus and worshipping God through Jesus
    are entirely compatible, as I see it, for it's in keeping with ancient
    patterns of Jewish custom and thought.
    
    * * *
    
    	For you to say to me:
    
>You spout a lot of words about worshippig God through Solomon, 
>but it only deflects from the point at hand: the discisples worshipping
>Jesus.
    
    suggests to me that at this moment, you aren't able to maintain a civil
    attitude toward me.  Though literally being my professional neighbor
    (for we work in the same facility and see each other in passing), you
    obviously are not able to show a Christian neighborliness toward me (as
    the Samaritan did to the Jew, though they were not religiously
    compatible, either).
    
    	If you are the true Christian and I am the cultish blasphemer, how
    is it that you are not able to show the more Christian attitude?
    
    	Though I think responding to earlier postings of yours might have
    some merit, I don't feel the merit of responding is greater than the
    ugly spirit that my replies to you are beginning to bring out.
    
    	If it seems for the better, I'll "spout no more" to you.
    
    
    								-mark.
    

    re .79 (LEDDEV::CAMUSO)/Tony
    
>        My, aren't we sensitive!  I sensed an elitist, derogatory flavor to
>        your references to us as "trinitarians", 
    
    I've been involved in NOTES discussions for years, and "trinitarian" is
    simply a standard part of my religious vocabulary.  I use it to make
    sure that I don't leave any doubt as to the background of any
    particular source that I am referring to.  "Trinitarian" is simply the
    most general word I know to represent the fact that some scholar or
    translator or author is not only NOT a Witness, but is also a
    proponent of the Trinity Doctrine.  
    
    It's true that I find no little irony in being able to find evidence in
    favor of my views which comes from trinitarian sources; but I surely do
    NOT use it as you think I do.
    
>        ...                                      and in your "laughing" at
>        the KJV.  Though I do not consider it insulting to be referenced as
>	trinitarian, I detected a snide demeanor in your notes.
    
    	Well, then, please accept my apology for having laughed at your
    beliefs (which was not my intention).  I was only using "funny" to
    (again) express irony.  Here the Jehovah's Witnesses were being
    lambasted for 'changing the Bible,' and almost right away, THE most
    infamous change (addition)  to the Bible (made by trinitarians) crops
    up as a proof text.
    
>        Indeed, my American Heritage Dictionary defines a bigot as one who
>        is intolerant in matters of religion, race, and politics.  As
>        Christians, we are not to tolerate sin.  I don't consider myself
>        bigoted with respect to race.  However, I consider your doctrine a
>        "doctrine of devils", as well you must consider the doctrine of the
>        Trinity.  Yours is Russelite doctrine, as he was the originator of
>        it, to the best of my knowledge.  
    
    	Charles Russell didn't invent the notion that the trinity is a
    false doctrine.  It's been a point of contention in Christendom for
    centuries, really ever since the trinity formula began to take shape
    in the first few centuries AFTER Christ's own century.
    
>        Indeed, what you have is a religion.  A works salvation.  Man
>        reaching up to God.  What we "trinitarians" believe is that
>        religion does not save.  Works do not save.  Jesus does.  Jesus is
>        God in a man's body suffering, without sinning, the temptations and
>        trials and death of man to justify man before creation.  
    
    	Thank you for telling me your impression of my faith.  In all the
    years I've been posting NOTES in various version of the Christian
    conference, I've never once claimed I believe my salvation is based on
    works (especially in the manner you've expressed it).  I doubt that
    you've ever truly read any genuine Witness publication say we are saved
    by works, either [since I know for a fact that this isn't the Witness
    view].

>	In Revelation, John bowed to worship the angel, who was quick to
>	correct him.  Wasn't this angel just another messenger of God,
>	worthy to accept worship in His name, according to your definition?
>	Why would he not accept the worship of John, when Jesus had?
    
    	Are you asking me a question, or telling me an answer?  Surely you
    aren't denying that the Bible records that on a number of occasions,
    men DID bow before angels to show their reverence for Jehovah, are you?
    
>>	Aren't you confusing obeisance to monarchs with worship of God?
    
    	I don't think so; but it's pretty clear that what I think isn't
    very important (around here).
    
    
    								-mark.

>    suggests to me that at this moment, you aren't able to maintain a civil
>    attitude toward me.  Though literally being my professional neighbor
>    (for we work in the same facility and see each other in passing), you
>    obviously are not able to show a Christian neighborliness toward me (as
>    the Samaritan did to the Jew, though they were not religiously
>    compatible, either).

In matters of business, we can be as neighborly as you like.  We work
for DEC, and should get along nicely to accomplish our tasks.  We cannot
have fellowship beyond acquaintance.  If you were hurt and "in the road"
we could talk about the "Christian neighborliness" of pity and helping
one in need.

It is my understanding that JWs won't pray with a "trinitarian" because of 
the incompatible religions, too.  Fine with me, but it shows a level
of hypocrisy on your part, methinks.  Your aspersion that I am not showing
you "Christianly neighborliness" holds very little bearing.  Oh, but if
we are all neighbors and perhaps the following is a "contradiction in
Scripture":

>    	If you are the true Christian and I am the cultish blasphemer, how
>    is it that you are not able to show the more Christian attitude?

2 John 1: 9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, 
hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father
and the Son.
 10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
into your house, neither bid him God speed:

The doctrine of Christ is [arguably; that is the issue, correct?] that 
He is God-incarnate.

The "Christian attitude" is not to tolerate heresy.  I don't accept
the "bad guy" role you would have me wear, nor the accusation that
my intolerance of the view that Jesus is not God is not a very 
"Christian attitude."

Mark M.

    re .78 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy
    
>    -mark S.
>    
>    You still haven't answered my question a way back... 
    
    	Yeah, I know ... I really have to put it off (beyond today, that's
    for sure).
    
>    If Jesus is not God then how could He be the Way, the Truth and the
>    Life?  How could a mere *chosen* man be our salvation?
    
    	It's a good question, I'll grant you that (and a question worth
    answering).  My apologies for not acknowledging it.
    
    	While you wait for my answer, I'll leave you a question (or two) to
    ponder.  Who needs salvation?  Mankind, or those (like God) in the
    spirit realm?  What was lost that needs saving?  Human life or life
    like God's?  What sort of life did God originally imbue Adam and Eve
    with?  A life like his own (divine and heavenly), or of an earthly sort
    (though not sinful)?
    
    	When the scriptures talk about Jesus being the "ransom" for man,
    does it talk about Jesus paying the ransom price as God, or as a man?
    
    								-mark.

    re 130.82 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
    Since my remarks about Solomon weren't even originally addressed to
    you, for you to say I was "spouting" them suggests to me that you  were
    offended by them, and then went out of your way to vent your feelings
    of offense, though by all counts you weren't even the one to whom I was
    talking.  I know aggravation when I see it.
    
>It is my understanding that JWs won't pray with a "trinitarian" because of 
>the incompatible religions, too.  Fine with me, but it shows a level
>of hypocrisy on your part, methinks.  Your aspersion that I am not showing
>you "Christianly neighborliness" holds very little bearing.  Oh, but if
>we are all neighbors and perhaps the following is a "contradiction in
>Scripture":
    
    	What's this have to do with anything we're talking about?  Since
    when does being 'neighborly' or civil in our discussions have ANYTHING to 
    do with the matter of Witnesses not participating in interfaith
    rituals?  There's no conflict between you and I having a civil (and
    even spirited) conversation about our faiths and my conscientious
    position to refrain from mixing my own worship with yours.
    
    	This isn't a church; but that doesn't mean it has to be a place for
    fights.  I'm not being intentionally offensive; but it sure seems that
    at least a few are looking to take offense and make a federal case
    about it.
    
    								-mark.

    >This isn't a church; but that doesn't mean it has to be a place for
    >fights.  I'm not being intentionally offensive; but it sure seems
    >that at least a few are looking to take offense and make a federal case
    >about it.
    
    -mark S.,
    
    I know you are smarter then this statement.  This is a cunning remark
    when you stated continually throughout your notes that you are *very
    aware* of the tenets of the conference in which you are sporting
    heretical doctrine [as defined by the tenets].
    
    You are being intentionally offensive in this conference and you knew
    that with your embedded statement that Jesus is not God.
    
    Please don't play the martyr here, it's not becoming.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    

    Commentary:
    
      That the plan [God's plan] was drafted by all 3 members of the divine
    Trinity is evident from Genesis 1:26-28; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8;
    46:10-11; Acts 15:18; Ephesians 1:4-11; 2:7; 3:5-11; 1 Peter 1:20.
    The Bible is very clear as to there being 3 separate, distinct and
    eternal persons in the Godhead.  See 89 proofs of a Trinity, p. 280 of
    the N.T.
    
      God's plan is revealed in 3 distinct parts being carried out by
    these 3 persons.  One, now known as the Father holds the headship in
    the plan of creation and redemption of all things (1 Chronicles 29:11;
    1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3).  Another, now called the Son, carries out
    the representative duties of the plan.  God, the Father, creates and
    redeem BY Jesus Christ (John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:15-18;
    Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Peter 2:24).  A third person, the Holy Spirit,
    actually executes the plan under the direction of the Father and the
    Son (Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4; Luke 1:35; John 3:5; 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-15;
    2 Peter 1:21).
    
    Dake's Annotated Bible, p.53 c.3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    A comment of mine:
    
    I did not know about the dispute about 1 John 5:7.  I never claimed to
    be a Bible scholar.  However, be that as it may, all versions, accepted
    or disputed stipulate the Spirit with a capital S, Who is referred to
    as a person not only here but numerous places.
    
    Dake's commentary on this verse is as follows:
    
    "What is written here to "in earth" in V 8 is not in some early MMS.,
    but this is no proof that it was not in the original book as here
    recorded.  Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 200-258 A.D., quotes this as
    being written by John (vol. v, 418, 423, Ante-Nicene Fathers).  Vigilus
    of Thapsus quotes it in the 5th century.  The Codex Montiforti and the
    Vulgate contain it.  The words are in perfect harmony with the doctrine
    of the Trinity, p. 280."
    
    Whether I think Dake is correct, or possibly mistaken, doesn't seem as
    important to the issue of Divinity for the persons of Jesus Christ and
    the Holy Spirit (not much discussed in this string, yet) because either
    rendering does not negate the other arguments of the Trinity.  
    
    Mark M.
    

The following is one of the earliest writings I have in my library
which is directly relevant to this topic.

Bishop Irenaeus is particularly important because he knew Polycarp
who knew the Apostle John.  Thus he is known to have a direct link
with the earliest and most authoritative teachers.

From the treatise against Heresies by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons,
[c. 120-202 AD]

The Church, which has spread everywhere, even to the ends of the earth,
received the faith from the apostles and their disciples.  By faith, we
believe in one God, the almighty Father "who made heaven and earth and
the sea and all that is in them."  We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, who became human for our salvation.  And we believe in
the Holy Spirit who through the prophets foretold God's plan: the coming
of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, his birth from the Virgin, his passion,
his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into heaven, and his final
coming from heaven in the glory of his Father, to "recapitulate all things"
and to raise all mortals from the dead, so that, by the decree of his
invisible Father, he may make a just judgment in all things and so that
"every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth" to
Jesus Christ our Lord and our God, our Saviour and our King, and "every
tongue confess him."

The Church, spread throughout the whole world, received this preaching
and this faith and now preserves it carefully, dwelling as it were in
one house.  Having one soul and one heart, the Church holds this faith,
preaches and teaches it consistently as though by a single voice.  For
though there are different languages, there is but one tradition.

The faith and the tradition of the churches founded in Germany are no
different from those founded among the Spanish and the Celts, in the
East, in Egypt, in Libya and elsewhere in the Mediterranean world.  Just
as God's creature, the sun, is one and the same the world over, so also
does the Church's preaching shine everywhere to enlighten all who want
to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Now of those who speak with authority in the churches, no preacher
however forceful will utter anything different -- for no one is above
the Master -- nor will a less forceful preacher diminish what has been
handed down.  Since our faith is everywhere the same, no one who can
say more augments it, nor can anyone who says less diminish it.

        Mark S.

	You have not addressed this example from .73.  In your reply
	thereto, it seemed that you were too busy mocking the AV and
	confusing obeisance with worship.

from .73
	Consider a perfectly just Judge.  He must sentence those that
	appear before Him according to a strict standard.  This is a
	limitation He has imposed upon Himself.  An accuser brings before
	Him someone whom He loves beyond our capacity to understand.  The
	sentence for the crime of which the loved one is accused is death.
	The Judge can only perform His perfect justice if He sentences this
	one to the death he deserves, or to take the punishment Himself.
	In an act of love beyond our comprehension, the Judge condescends
	to take the place of the accused in the sentence of death, to
	justify His loved one before the accuser and the rest of creation.

        Russelite doctrine would have the Judge send the clerk of courts or
        the bailiff to justify the loved one.  They would have God send one
        of His many creations, an underling, to suffice as justification.
        This, of course, would not be perceived as fair by the accuser or
        his minion or the rest of creation.

        As a wife is coequal with her husband, and is considered by God as
        one flesh with him, yet the virtuous wife submits herself to her
        husband.  As Christ, who, as one with the Godhead, as coequal with
	the Father, submitted Himself to His Father that man would be
	justified.

	Tony
	

	The bible also tells us not to harken to false prophets, and that
	such are identified if so much as one of their prophecies fails.

        Weren't there a couple of prophecies with which the JW are
        identified that failed?

	Incidentally, Mark S, the JW and Mormon's don't have the market
	cornered on cold-calling or witnessing in general.

	Tony

          Numbers 21:6 
           6  And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and
          they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

          1 Corinthians 10:9 
           9  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also
          tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Isaiah 9:6 
           6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
          the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name
          shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
          everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

          Titus 2:13 
           13  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
          appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Isaiah 40:3 
           3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare
          ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a
          highway for our God.

          Matthew 3:3 
           3  For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias,
          saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
          ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Psalms 24:10 
           10  Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he [is]
          the King of glory. Selah.

          1 Corinthians 2:8 
           8  Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had
          they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of
          glory.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Isaiah 6:1 
           1. In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
          sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train
          filled the temple.

          John 12:41 
           41  These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and
          spake of him.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Isaiah 8:13 
           13  Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and [let] him [be]
          your fear, and [let] him [be] your dread.

          1 Peter 2:8 
           8  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even
          to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient:
          whereunto also they were appointed.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Malachi 3:1 
           1. Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare
          the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall
          suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the
          covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith
          the LORD of hosts.

          Matthew 11:10 
           10  For this is [he], of whom it is written, Behold, I send
          my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way
          before thee.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Isaiah 7:14 
           14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
          Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall
          call his name Immanuel.

          Matthew 1:23 
           23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
          forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
          being interpreted is, God with us.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Matthew 8:29 
           29  And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do
          with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to
          torment us before the time?

          Luke 8:28 
           28  When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before
          him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with
          thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of God most high? I beseech thee,
          torment me not.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Psalms 110:1 
           1. A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou
          at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

          Matthew 22:43 
           43  He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call
          him Lord, saying,
           44  The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
          till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
           45  If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

          John 1:1 
           1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
          God, and the Word was God.

          1 Timothy 3:16 
           16  And without controversy great is the mystery of
          godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
          Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed
          on in the world, received up into glory.

          1 John 5:20 
           20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given
          us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and
          we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ.
          This is the true God, and eternal life.

          John 5:17 
           17. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto,
          and I work.
           18  Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because
          he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God
          was his Father, making himself equal with God.
           19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily,
          I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what
          he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth,
          these also doeth the Son likewise.
           20  For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all
          things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater
          works than these, that ye may marvel.
           21  For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth
          [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
           22  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
          judgment unto the Son:
           23  That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they
          honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth
          not the Father which hath sent him.

          John 10:30 
           30  I and [my] Father are one.
           31  Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
           32  Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you
          from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
           33  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone
          thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a
          man, makest thyself God.

          John 12:45 
           45  And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

          John 20:28 
           28  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my
          God.

          Acts 20:28 
           28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the
          flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
          overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath
          purchased with his own blood.

          1 Corinthians 8:6 
           6  But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom
          [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
          by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

	Mark S.

	Please provide for us conclusive evidence that trinitarians laced
	scripture with their doctrine in translating for the AV.  

        As for the early battles over the Trinity, are you referring to the
        Gnostics?  From what I was told in discipleship, their beliefs and
        practices are more akin with today's New Age gnonsense than to the
        early New Testament churches.  Please provide for us your sources.

	Tony

    re .85 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy
    
>    >This isn't a church; but that doesn't mean it has to be a place for
>    >fights.  I'm not being intentionally offensive; but it sure seems
>    >that at least a few are looking to take offense and make a federal case
>    >about it.
>    
>    -mark S.,
>    
>    I know you are smarter then this statement.  This is a cunning remark
>    when you stated continually throughout your notes that you are *very
>    aware* of the tenets of the conference in which you are sporting
>    heretical doctrine [as defined by the tenets].
>    
>    You are being intentionally offensive in this conference and you knew
>    that with your embedded statement that Jesus is not God.
    
    Nancy,
    
    	As you recall, this whole topic thread was created because Phil
    Yerkess (a Witness) made some remarks in another topic thread that some 
    moderator (you?) decided to isolate in its own topic (perhaps in order
    to contain them, and evidently with the goal of refuting them).
    
    	In 130.9, Paul Weiss asked Phil about John 8:58.  Phil replied in
    130.12; Jim Henderson replied to Phil in 130.13, asking for more
    information on alternate translations of John 8:58.
    
    	At no time -- up to this point, early in the game, did you or
    another moderator step in and say "don't answer that" (let alone,
    "don't ask that question").
    
    	My first reply to this string was 130.16, NOT in order to "be
    intentionally offensive", but to answer Jim's question and give Phil a
    hand (since I had information on-line).  I also posted a reply to Mark
    Metcalfe (.17)
    
    	I see that I overlooked your question to me in .18 (replies started
    to come in so fast I missed it); but I conclude that initially, even
    you were NOT offended by my participation (or at least at that time
    didn't think to accuse me of coming here to be deliberately offensive).
    Since you asked additional questions directly to me, I answered them.
    You didn't seem to find those replies offensive.
    
    	More replies were posted, more points were raised (in challenge, I
    presume); I answered the ones I had time for.  Although I may have
    allowed a little annoyance to color a few of my last postings, for the
    most part, the only "intentional" thing I've had in mind is to
    "intentionally" answer the questions that have been raised (whether
    addressed directly to me, or -- as at the outset -- addressed to Phil,
    since I knew he wouldn't mind, given that he and I are on the side).
    
    	It so happens that I am confident that my views on God, the
    trinity, and etc., are the truth, but I don't get offended by others
    with opposing views when in the middle of a discussion about those
    differences, and I *certainly* don't talk about them ONLY to cause
    offense.
    
>    Please don't play the martyr here, it's not becoming.
    
    	Me?  A martyr?  Here?  ... you underestimate the thickness of my
    skin.  [In fact, I put on extra armour before entering this conference. 
    :-)]  This notwithstanding, I can still see that the spirit of the 
    conversation has turned sour (because, it seems, I keep upholding my
    end of the conversation), and be sensitive to that change.
    
    	[As I recall, "martyr" originally meant "witness"; and the early
    Christians got martyred for the witness they gave.  Since I *am* a
    *Witness*, I obviously can't help 'playing the witness,' can I?]
    
    * * *
    
    	Now, the question is, do you want me to continue answering the
    questions that have been posted (some by you) or not?  If yes, you're
    going to have to 'bite the bullet' and accept the fact that my 
    Witness views are "offensive" (and I say this because you say it), and
    make a distinction between the offense my VIEWS give you, and any
    offense I *personally* give (which I'm willing to take the heat for and
    apologize for, if necessary).
    
    								-mark.

re .62

Mark,

Please clarify...

You say that "The person of GOD MUST BE THE OBJECT of obedience" and 
"When the PERSON is focused upon,". How can one, or help others to, focus on 
the person of God? why do I ask, well it can't be with the human eye. 

Also being of sinful nature how can God be the object of obedience?. Seeing
that the nature is to obey fleshly attitudes.

btw you using the term "GOD MUST BE THE OBJECT of obedience" made me think
of the fear of God, that is not wanting to displease him. Deuteronomy 11:17
mentions that this fear has to be learnt by learning/observing his commandments.
Though Christians are not under the old Law convenant, Jesus is the mediator
of a new convenant (Hewbrews 9:15). 
  

Also in 128.2 you mentioned putting a mirror in the face of the politically
correct. Now what mirror is it that you are instructing to put there?.
(I was thinking in line with James 1:22-25) 

Phil. 

	The discussion in here has become too personally directed

		I'm write-locking it for a cool-off period.

Offence is being given and taken in the way views are expressed, rather, 
even, than at the views themselves.  This is not acceptable.

The warning issued in note 130.63 was not heeded.


							Andrew Yuille
							co-moderator

This note is being opened again for discussion.  Please answer as to the 
LORD, rather than to merely what is perceived in preceding replies!

May God bless us here.

				In Jesus' love
							Andrew Yuille
							 co-moderator

    Mark S.,
    
    There was some discussion prior to the write-lock of whether or not
    intentional offense was being demonstrated by yourself.
    
    I'd like to clarify my below statement:
    
    
    >I know you are smarter then this statement.  This is a cunning remark
    >when you stated continually throughout your notes that you are
    >*very aware* of the tenets of the conference in which you are sporting
    >heretical doctrine [as defined by the tenets].
    
    
    This discussion was spurred off by your embedded statement that Jesus
    was not God.  
    
    Subsequent questions to you in regards to that belief, when answered
    are not considered intentional offenses.
    
    My statement was basically to respond to a tactical move on your part
    to cast a light of "martyr" state to your position.  
    
    Carry on the discussions, please be careful as to tone in further
    responses [includes me].
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    re .98 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy
    
    	I'm glad to see this topic is open for business again (but I'll
    have to defer most of my participation until next week, since I'll be
    away until then, starting tomorrow).
    
>    This discussion was spurred off by your embedded statement that Jesus
>    was not God.  
    
    	I see that in 130.28, my explanation of Heb 1:3 included the
    phrase, 
    
    		As the "image of God" and the 'reflection' of the
    		glory of God, Jesus is obviously NOT God ...
    
    and in 130.30, Mark Metcalfe commented that my remarks were
    "inflammatory" -- but I really wasn't intending to either start or fuel
    a fire.
    
    	I suppose I should have said, "it's obvious to me that Jesus is NOT
    God" -- and in the future I'll try even harder to avoid setting off the
    hair triggers around here -- but really, for the sake of discussion
    among civilized people, I think a little more slack could be cut all
    round.
    
>    My statement was basically to respond to a tactical move on your part
>    to cast a light of "martyr" state to your position.  
    
    	My remarks in .85, which prompted your own about me playing martyr,
    weren't meant (by me) to be taken that way.  I just felt the tone was 
    turning sour, and was sorry to see it go that way.
    
    	However, as far as I'm concerned, it's water under the bridge.
    
>    Carry on the discussions, please be careful as to tone in further
>    responses [includes me].
    
    	Gladly.
    
    							-mark.

    re .18 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy

    re .16 (my posting), you ask ...

>    -mark, 
>    
>    This is interesting... Can you tell me which version of the
>    Bible these folks are using to come up with their translations, or are
>    they all GREEK/HEBREW scholars that have read the original texts and
>    come up with these translations.. you lost me with all the personal
>    names?????  

    	I do know that not all are translations right from the Greek.
    Lamsa's and Murdock's translation are based on the Syriac Peshitta.  
    The ones that I identified as "(Hebrew)" are English translations
    of Hebrew translations of the Greek NT.  Others are identified as being
    translations of Georgian and Ethiopic manuscripts.

    	I've taken some of these references from an appendix in the back of
    the 1984 Reference Edition of the NWT, but I have a good many of the
    translations I mentioned, as well.  For instance, I have a copy of
    Lamsa's translation, which in most places reads almost *exactly*
    like the KJV.  I've seen, and even held a copy of Murdock's translation
    (and drooled on it a bit); but I couldn't afford it.

    	If you really want to know, I have copies of the following
    translations (which I referenced in 130.16):

    		Moffatt's
    		Goodspeed's
    		Williams'
    		_The Twentieth Century New Testament_
    		_The Modern New Testament_ by Lamsa
    		_The Original New Testament_ by Schonfield
    		_The Four Gospels and the Revelation_ by Lattimore
    		NASB/NT with the margin reference
    		_The Living Bible_

    I can't recall whether the editions I have document the Greek texts
    they are taken from; but I think I can say with 100% assurity that
    there are NO documented variants of John 8:58 that affect the words of
    Jesus which are often translated as "I am".  [_A Textual Commentary on
    the Greek New Testament_ by Metzger, 1975, which documents the most
    well known textual variants, doesn't list any.]

>                And what is there doctrinal background affiliation?

    	The only translator in the above bunch that I think would be
    considered 'controversial' is Schonfield, for he is the author the _The
    Passover Plot_, which, as I understand, contains some ... shall we say
    ... less than orthodox interpretations in it.  The NASB was produced by
    the Lockman Foundation, which has (to the best of my knowledge) kept
    the names of the scholars who worked on it confidential (i.e., it's an
    'anonymous translation' -- at least, that's what the forward in the
    edition I have says).  _The Living Bible_ is a Roman Catholic
    paraphrase (I think).  A comment I recall from _The Interpreter's
    Bible_ said the committee which produced _The Twentieth Century New 
    Testament_ is also anonymous (though I could be mistaken).

    	Other than the above, I'm afraid I can't be of much more help.

    								-mark.

================================================================================
Note 130.99   ILLUSN::SORNSON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>       I see that in 130.28, my explanation of Heb 1:3 included the
>    phrase,
>
>               As the "image of God" and the 'reflection' of the
>               glory of God, Jesus is obviously NOT God ...
>
>    and in 130.30, Mark Metcalfe commented that my remarks were
>    "inflammatory" -- but I really wasn't intending to either start or fuel
>    a fire.

Sorry to get so bent out of shape over the major tenet of the Christian faith
that you consider such a casual remark. (Sarcasm intended, in case the point is
missed.)  John Leabeater probably didn't intend to offend the people in the
Hindu conference a few years back when he went into  their conference and
challenged the Vedas with the Bible.  Perhaps after all these years in the
Christian notes conference as a "permanent guest" (is that how you described it
in your introduction?), and Jehovah's Witness, you didn't realize how
inflammatory such a casual remark can be, to wit:

>       I suppose I should have said, "it's obvious to me that Jesus is NOT
>    God" -- and in the future I'll try even harder to avoid setting off the
>    hair triggers around here -- but really, for the sake of discussion
>    among civilized people, I think a little more slack could be cut all
>    round.

One might also avoid emotion-laden terms such as "hair triggers", "civilized
people."  It is demeaning, for one thing, and shows how insensitive you WANT to
be towards those who hold that Jesus is God, which is a major tenet of this
conference.

The idea that you are unaware that saying that Jesus is not God in this 
conference would not solicit a strong reaction (that you term hair-triggered
and uncivilized) seems inconceivable to me for as long as you've been with
this conference (longer than me).  Even saying, "it is obvious to me that..."
would have drawn a reaction, though perhaps not as strong.  

Mark M.

    Well ... I'm glad to see this topic didn't get out of hand in my
    absence (last week -- I was on vacation).
    
    re .101 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>                                      Perhaps after all these years in the
>Christian notes conference as a "permanent guest" (is that how you described it
>in your introduction?), and Jehovah's Witness, you didn't realize how
>inflammatory such a casual remark can be, ...
    
    	You do have a point.  
    
    	For better or worse, my self-considered status as a "permanant
    guest" may soon end, since I was just informed that my job is at high
    risk of going away.  If I don't find another job within Digital, I'll
    finally be going the way of a good many other regular noters in this
    conference.
    
>One might also avoid emotion-laden terms such as "hair triggers", "civilized
>people."  It is demeaning, for one thing, and shows how insensitive you WANT to
>be towards those who hold that Jesus is God, which is a major tenet of this
>conference.
    
    	While on vacation, I had time to regret the "hair trigger remark"
    (at least a little) -- though I still think it's true.  I try to be
    aware of the image people have of my own religion, and what sort of
    image we project by our overall attitudes and actions.  And so, as a
    result, I can usually tell when even the most negatively-inflated
    rhetoric about us contains some grain of truth.  I prefer not to go out
    of my way to criticize; but given that this conference purports to
    represent the same people of the NT who were willing to endure many a
    slap (and worse) with mildness and joy for the sake of their faith, I
    just find it incongruous to see a few mere words generate such a
    reaction from those who profess the True Christian Faith, and who label
    my own faith as a Satanic Cult.
    
    * * *
    
    	Since I consider myself to be among the "civilized people" that I
    was referring to, I meant no cut (unless you'd care to read in a little
    self-depreciation on my part).
    
    * * *
    
>The idea that you are unaware that saying that Jesus is not God in this 
>conference would not solicit a strong reaction (that you term hair-triggered
>and uncivilized) seems inconceivable to me for as long as you've been with
>this conference (longer than me).  Even saying, "it is obvious to me that..."
>would have drawn a reaction, though perhaps not as strong.  
    
    	If conference members post notes asking for Witness opinions on
    certain scriptures -- especially when the topic is related to the
    trinity -- it seems inconceivable to me that for the sake of
    discussion, the conference members who profess your beliefs can't
    endure what is said in reply with a little more grace [and I don't mean
    to slight those who DO show such grace, for you know who you are :-)].
    
    	Given how short my time may be, I see no futher point in debating
    this.  I hope to exchange a few more topic-related replies before I go,
    and thus hope that for better or for worse, they'll be received in the
    positive way in which I mean them.
    
    								-mark.

    re 130.47 (DREUL1::rob)
    
    Hi Rob,
    
    	Now that this topic is open again, I can answer the rest of your
    posting (actually the first part) ...
    
>>	God is not in subjection to anyone, and therefore owes obedience to
>>    no one; yet Jesus "became obedient unto death".  Jesus didn't highly
>>    exalt himself, but "God highly exalted him."
>
>Whereas I might agree (on the surface) with your statement, even you must
>admit that God could place Himself in subjection to anyone He wishes, couldn't
>He?  He owes His obedience to noone, but He could give obedience to anyone
>He likes, couldn't He?  Or is something impossible for God to do?  
    
    	I believe it impossible; which is to say that God's being the "Most
    High over all the earth" (Ps 83:18b RSV) makes the notion of him being
    in subjection to anyone, even if just by choice, a moot point.  As the
    "Most High" there is not only no one higher for him to be in subjection
    to, but for him to lower himself beneath one already lower than himself
    would contradict the axiomatic truth of his being the Most High.
    
    	Solomon wrote of earthly kings:
    
    		"For the word of the king is supreme, and who may say
    		to him, "What are you doing?"" (Eccl 8:4 RSV)
    
    Although this obviously has relative import because human kings
    (especially the Davidic kings) are accountable to God, since Jehovah
    God is the Ultimate King, who is there that God could place himself in
    subjection to so that that one might say, "What are you doing?", and
    thus hold God accountable as one in subjection?
    
    	I believe there's actually another scripture which says more
    directly that there is no one who can hold authority over God, but I
    could only find the one above in Ecclesiastes.
    
    	Additionally, when we examine what the NT says about the authority
    given to Jesus, that everything might be in subjection to him, one has
    to take note that this authority is itself, relative.  [And note, when
    you speak of God subjecting himself voluntarily, you're actually
    speaking of what Jesus did as God's Son; you're not talking about God
    the Father, right?]  Paul wrote:
    
    		"For God has put all things in subjection under his
    		feet."  But when it [the prophetic scripture] says, "All
    		things are put in subjection under him,"  it is plain
    		that he [God] is excepted who put all things under
    		him [Jesus]."  (1Cor 15:27 RSV)
    
    In plain language, the Bible really only speaks of Jesus coming to
    earth (being made "lower than angels", and thus obviously lower in
    station than he was when in heaven before coming to earth), and of
    Jesus being made higher than all things.  It doesn't (plainly) say that
    God came to earth and that God was raised up, & etc.  In all cases,
    Jesus remains in subjection to God (both while on earth and after his
    return, in glory, to heaven).  Thus the conclusion most obvious to me
    is that, again, Jesus isn't God, but rather is a separate being who is
    in subjection to him.  Accordingly, God was never in subjection to
    anyone, but has been, as always, the Ultimate Authority, to whom all
    owe absolute subjection.
    
>                                                                   That God
>submitted Himself to suffer death (the Creator for the creation, the Sinless
>for the sinful) is, if not in fact certainly in theory, possible.  Afteral,
>nothing (even this) is impossible for God.
    
    	Well, the Bible *does* say that it is impossible for God to lie;
    and I believe it also says (or at least implies) that it's also
    impossible for God to go back on his word, and thus contradict himself.
    Thus it's impossible for God to act contrary to his own position as
    "Most High," and do something which would otherwise falsify his Word
    (and, thus, specifically, the Bible itself).
    
    	Furthermore, the Bible says of God:
    
    		"Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah?  O my God,
    		my Holy One, you do not die. ..." (Hab 1:12 NWT)
    
    It so happens that the expression "you do not die" was emmended in the
    Masoretic Text to read "we shall not die" (which is the reading of the
    RSV and most other translations), with the original reading only
    preserved in the margin; but the truth is that the original scriptures
    state that God cannot die, and thus what you say can't possibly be
    true, that "God submitted Himself to suffer death," for again, such a
    death (for God) is not possible if it's also true that God does "not
    die".

>So, maybe the question isn't: is it *possible* for God to submit Himself to 
>death? but: did He?  Sorry, if that doesn't make sense to you, but some things
>in the Bible are mysteries.  And the mystery of godliness (that God was man-
>ifested in the flesh...1 Tim. 3:16) is one of them.
    
    	This question DOES make sense to me; but I believe the scriptures
    make it evident that it is both impossible for God to submit himself to
    anyone, and for God to die.
    
    	On the otherhand, according to the views I hold as a Witness, it is
    very possible for Jesus, as God's Son, to have been (and to be) in
    subjection to his Father (and thus to be obedient to him, as an
    inferior), and for Jesus to have died (since it was only after his
    resurrection that he was granted true immortality, to serve the undying
    Melchizekian high-priest, having then been given "the power of an
    indestructible life"-- Heb 7:16 RSV).
    
    * * *
    
    	What, by the way, did you think of my response in reply to your
    request for me to "dissect" those verses in Zechariah?
    
    
    								-mark.

  ~ <<< Note 130.103 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>
  ~               -< on what is and is not impossible for God >-
    
   ~ return, in glory, to heaven).  Thus the conclusion most obvious to me
   ~ is that, again, Jesus isn't God, but rather is a separate being who is
   ~ in subjection to him.  Accordingly, God was never in subjection to
    
    	That is very interesting, my Bible reads differently. My Bible
    	provides me the impression that Jesus is INDEED God. How do I
    	arrive at this?  Jesus said (at least once) 'See me and you
        have seen the Father which sent me', and the Gospel of John
       starts with setting the deity of Jesus by saying:
    	   John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
    	            God,and the Word was God.
                  2 He was with God in the beginning.
    	   John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made
                     through him, the world did not recognize him.
    
       This leads me to believe in my simpleton understanding that Jesus
       (the Word) was indeed God (the Creator) and therefore one. Further
       more, my understnding is that the same Holy Spirit which proceeds
       from the Father also proceeded from the son. There are too many
       passages that I can extract, but I am limited in my time. Please
       pardon my inability to be exhaustive on the subject.
    
       Oh, and BTW, 1 Cor 28 reads differenetly again from yours. Here my
       text makes it perfectly clear that Jesus as true man did not
       consider equality with God something to be attained. But as True
       God will have everything put under Him so that He may be all in all.
    
       I will pray on this subject,
    	PDM
    

    re 130.104 (MKOTS3::MORANO)
    
>   ~ return, in glory, to heaven).  Thus the conclusion most obvious to me
>   ~ is that, again, Jesus isn't God, but rather is a separate being who is
>   ~ in subjection to him.  Accordingly, God was never in subjection to
>    
>    	That is very interesting, my Bible reads differently. My Bible
>    	provides me the impression that Jesus is INDEED God. How do I
>    	arrive at this?  Jesus said (at least once) 'See me and you
>        have seen the Father which sent me', and the Gospel of John
>       starts with setting the deity of Jesus by saying:
    
    	Perhaps it's not always so noticable, but I usually try to keep a
    close association between specific scriptures and my views on what they
    mean.  Though my views on specific scriptures obviously contribute to
    my views on 'the big picture,' I usually find it helpful to deal with
    the specific point of each scripture at a time, because that helps me
    sort out how they all fit together (interpretation-wise).
    
    	What you say about John 1:1 has some bearing on the overall topic
    of the trinity/divinity of Jesus; but since I was replying to Rob's
    specific question about how God could be in subjection to anyone, John
    1:1 (and 1:10) didn't bear directly on the point.  Focussing on John
    1:1 and 1:10 helps me see what you consider most important; but it
    doesn't help me to see whether you understood what I was saying about
    1Cor 15:27.
    
    	If you'd like to talk about John 1:1, we can (but it may be more
    involved that you'd care to get into).
    
    	I think I see your point on how John 1:10 bears on the point of
    whether Jesus is God; but the world being made "through" Jesus leaves
    plenty of room for him to be God's agent of creation, though not the
    Creator himself.  If an architect builds his buildings through a
    building contractor, the contractor isn't the architect himself.  In
    fact, "builders," when they have a big enough business, often do little
    of the actual work themselves, but rather let their workers do the work
    for them, whereas they supervise, but still get the credit for being
    the builder.
    
>       Oh, and BTW, 1 Cor 28 reads differenetly again from yours. Here my
>       text makes it perfectly clear that Jesus as true man did not
>       consider equality with God something to be attained. But as True
>       God will have everything put under Him so that He may be all in all.
    
    	Do you mean 1Cor 15:27, or were you really reading v.28 (which I
    didn't mention in .103, though I did mention it way back in .36).  As
    I've said before, I often quote from the Revised Standard Version,
    since it was produced by a committee of recognized, orthodox scholars,
    and is even approved by the National Council of Churches of Christ in
    the USA.  How does your translation read?
    
    	In order to be clear, I've found it most helpful to quote the verse
    I have in mind, and then state plainly how I think the wording of the
    verse applies to my point (or conversely, I'll restate what I think the
    verse means, or what it's primary point is).  If you did the same, it
    would help me understand why your conclusions are different than mine.
    
    								-mark.

>    	While on vacation, I had time to regret the "hair trigger remark"
>    (at least a little) -- though I still think it's true.  I try to be
>    aware of the image people have of my own religion, and what sort of
>    image we project by our overall attitudes and actions.

Well, the trigger was rusty, but it's been oiled. 

It is interesting that the image you want to project is in a conference
where the views of Truth are opposed to your views of Truth.  So let's
make sure that we put on the image that doesn't offend, for a simple 
presentation of the "truth" only brings out the hair triggers of some
people whose image is, shall we say, "uncivilized?"

>>The idea that you are unaware that saying that Jesus is not God in this 
>>conference would not solicit a strong reaction (that you term hair-triggered
>>and uncivilized) seems inconceivable to me for as long as you've been with
>>this conference (longer than me).  Even saying, "it is obvious to me that..."
>>would have drawn a reaction, though perhaps not as strong.  
>    
>    	If conference members post notes asking for Witness opinions on
>    certain scriptures -- especially when the topic is related to the
>    trinity -- it seems inconceivable to me that for the sake of
>    discussion, the conference members who profess your beliefs can't
>    endure what is said in reply with a little more grace [and I don't mean
>    to slight those who DO show such grace, for you know who you are :-)].

I don't recall anyone soliciting the Witness opinion on the remark that started 
this whole thing.  In fact, in a conference where the Trinity is part of
the stated premise, except for the great Wiebe/Sornson debates, there are
very few conference members who go looking for the Witness opinion about 
scripture, because (as you say) it is not very well received (because of
the conference premise and standard for Truth).

Now, .103 has some more interest comments...

Mark M.

>    Although this obviously has relative import because human kings
>    (especially the Davidic kings) are accountable to God, since Jehovah
>    God is the Ultimate King, who is there that God could place himself in
>    subjection to so that that one might say, "What are you doing?", and
>    thus hold God accountable as one in subjection?
>.
>.
>.    
>   	This question DOES make sense to me; but I believe the scriptures
>    make it evident that it is both impossible for God to submit himself to
>    anyone, and for God to die.

The concept of God being Three Persons and One God fits quite nicely.
You come from a predisposition of the Witness perspective, which you can
make the counterclaim of a predisposition of us "trinitarians."  However,
by the standard for Truth of Scripture, the Witness view fails the measure
of reality in this.  

God the Son can and did place Himself into subjection to God the Father.
When married people experience the oneness of one-flesh, they are still
two people, yet they are one, yet one is in subjection to the other, yet
they are in submission to each other.  The earthly marriage, when truly
biblcally one flesh, is a dim picture of how the trinity exists in Three
Distinct Persons, Who we've come to know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
by their offices and responsibilities inthe Godhead, yet One God.  Elohim.
The Father is God.  Jesus is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  They are One
God.

Mark M.

The following is a 700+ line note consisting of a collection and arrangement
of scriptures defending the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I have posted this
in previous versions of the Christian notesfile, but I don't remember where. 

The moderators should feel free to replace the following note with a pointer,
if they feel it is appropriate.

[All quotes from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).  Tetragrammaton
rendered as YHWH in this study (where NASB normally substitutes "the LORD") 
for emphasis in distinguishing between the divine name for God in the Old
Testament, and the Hebrew <adonai>, which literally means "lord".] 

Ultimately, God is incomprehensible to human minds

	"'Can you discover the depths of God?  Can you discover the limits
	of the Almighty?'"  (Job 11:7)

	"'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My 
	ways,' declares YHWH.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
	So are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your 
	thoughts."  (Isaiah 55:8-9)

	(Also see Job 42:2-6, Psalm 145:3, Isaiah 40:13, Romans 11:33)

But we must not put limits on what God can do

	"...all things are possible with God."  (Mark 10:27)

	"'I know that you can do all things...'"  (Job 42:2)

Jesus Christ was either God, or not "good" -- we must choose.

	"And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and
	knelt before Him, and began asking Him, 'Good Teacher, what shall
	I do to inherit eternal life?'  And Jesus said to him, 'Why do
	you call me good?  No one is good except God alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)

Jesus Christ is God.

	"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
	Word was God"  (John 1:1) 

He was the original Creator of the heavens and the earth.
 
	"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came
	into being that has come into being." (John 1:3)

	"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and the 
	earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers
	or authorities -- all things have been created by Him and for Him.
	And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
	(Col 1:16-17)

Jesus lowered Himself, was exhalted.

	"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us..." (John 1:14)

	"...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard 
	equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself [i.e. 
	laid aside His privileges], taking the form of a bond-servant, 
	being made in the likeness of men.  And being found in appearance
	as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of 
	death, even death on a cross.  Therefore also God highly exhalted
	Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that 
	at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in
	heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue
	should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
	Father.  (Phil 2:5-11)

Jesus' position on earth was of voluntary submission to the Father, setting 
aside many of His privileges to act as God.

	"'...the Father is greater than I.'"  (John 14:28)

Jesus' nature and equality with God is not denied, even by Jesus

	"For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
	Him, because He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but also he was
	calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18)

	"'I and the Father are one.'  The Jews took up stones again to stone 
	Him.  Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the 
	Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?'  The Jews answered
	Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and
	because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.'  [Rather
	than correct them, Jesus then proceeds to reinforce his claim,
	followed by the Jews again seeking to seize him]  (John 10:30-39)

	"'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father
	except through Me.  If you had known Me, you would have known My
	Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.'  Phillip
	said to Him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.'
	Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have
	not come to know Me, Phillip?  He who has seen Me has seen the Father;
	how do you say, "Show us the Father"?  (John 14:6-9)

	"For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form"  (Col 2:9)	

	"Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'  Jesus said
	to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?  Blessed are
	they who did not see, and yet believed."  (John 20:28-29)

He resumed his position of "all authority" after the resurrection

	"'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth'" 
	(Matt 28:18)

Jesus' name implies Deity

	"'Behold, the virgin will be with child, and shall bear a Son, and 
	they shall call His name Immanuel' [Isaiah 7:14], which translated
	means, 'God with us'".  (Matt 1:23)

Old Testament prophecies of coming Messiah imply Deity

	"...His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
	(Micah 5:2)

	"...And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
	Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."  (Isaiah 9:6)

Jesus is YHWH, the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 (<EGO EIMI> of NT and Greek Septuagint)

	"Then Moses said to God, 'Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel,
	and I shall say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you."
	Now they may say to me, "What is His name?"  What shall I say to them?'
	And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, 'Thus you shall
	say to the sons of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'  And God, 
	furthermore, said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,
	"YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
	and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you."  This is my name forever,
	and is My memorial-name to all generations.'"  (Exodus 3:13-15)

	"'I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless
	you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.'"  (John 8:24)

	"'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.'  
	Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him..."  (John 8:58-59)

	"Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him,
	went forth and said to them, 'Whom do you seek?'  They answered Him,
	'Jesus the Nazarene.'  He said to them, "I AM."  And Judas also who
	was betraying Him, was standing with them.  When therefore He said
	to them, "I AM", they drew back and fell to the ground."  (John 18:4-6)

References in Old Testament to YHWH find fulfillment in Jesus of New Testament.

OT	"A voice is calling, 'Clear the way for YHWH in the wilderness; make
	smooth in the desert a highway for our God."  (Isaiah 40:3)

NT	"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb 
	of God who takes away the sin of the world.'"  (John 1:29)

OT	"'In that day YHWH will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem... they
	will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him,
	as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him,
	like the bitter weeping over a first-born.'"  (Zech 12:8-10)

NT	"Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him,
	even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will 
	mourn over Him.  (Rev 1:7)

OT	"Then YHWH will go forth and fight against those nations, as when
	He fights on a day of battle.  And in that day His feet will stand
	on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east..."
	(Zech 14:3-4)

NT	"And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were
	looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.  And as they
	were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two
	men in white clothing stood beside them; and they also said, 'Men of
	Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky?  This Jesus, who has
	been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as
	you have watched Him go into heaven.'  Then they returned to Jerusalem
	from the hill called the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem..."
	(Acts 1:9-12)

OT	"'And it will come about  that whoever calls on the name of YHWH will
	be delivered.'"  (Joel 2:32)

NT	"...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in
	your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved...
	for whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved."
	(Romans 10:9,13)

Also, see

	Psalm 23:1, Isaiah 40:11 --> John 10:1-14, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 2:25,5:4
	Psalm 50:1-6 --> 2 Thess 1:7-10
	Psalm 68:15-18 --> Eph 4:8
	Psalm 102:1,12,25-27 --> Heb 1:10-12
	Isaiah 8:12-15 --> 1 Pet 2:8
	Isaiah 43:3 --> Acts 3:14
	Isaiah 44:6 --> Rev 1:7,8,17,18,2:8,22:13
	Isaiah 45:22,23 --> Rom 14:9-12, 2 Cor 5:10, Phil 2:10
	Isaiah 62:11,12 --> Rev 22:12
	Jer 11:12,17:10,20:12 --> Rev 2:23

Jesus was called "God" by apostles

	"...and the Word was God."  (John 1:1)

	"Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and My God!'"  (John 20:28)

	"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the
	bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."  (John 1:18)

	"'Be on guard for yourselves and all the flock, among which the Holy
	Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He
	purchased with His own blood.'"  (Acts 20:28)

	"But of the Son, He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and
	the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.  Thou hast loved
	righteousness and hated lawnessnesss; therefore God, thy God, hath 
	anointed Thee...' [Psalm 45:6-7]" (Hebrews 1:8-9)

	"...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of
	our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that
	He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a 
	people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds."  (Titus 2:13-14)

	"...by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." 
	(1 Peter 1:1)

	"And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, you
	and your household.' --> ...and rejoiced greatly, having believed in
	God with his whole household."  (Acts 16:31,34)

	"But the man from whom the demons had gone out was begging Him that
	he might accompany Him; but He sent him away, saying, "Return to your
	house and describe what great things God has done for you."  And he
	went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things
	Jesus had done for him.  (Luke 8:38-39)

Both Jesus and God are the "First and the Last"
	
YHWH:	"This is what YHWH says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, YHWH Almighty:
	 I am the first, and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
	 (Isaiah 44:6)

YHWH:	"Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called:  I am he;  I am
	 the first and I am the last.  My own hand laid the foundations of
	 the earth,..." (Isaiah 48:12-13)

Jesus:	"Do not be afraid.  I am the First and the Last.  I am the Living One;
	 I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!"  (Rev 1:17)

Jesus:	"...These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died
	 and came to life again."  (Rev 2:8)

Both Jesus and God are the "Alpha and the Omega"  (first and last letters of
the Greek alphabet)

God:	"I am the Alpha and the Omega", says the Lord God, "who is, and who
	 was, and who is to come, the Almighty."  (Rev 1:8)

God:	 He said to me:  "It is done.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
	 Beginning and the End.  To him who is thirsty I will give to drink
	 without cost from the spring of the water of life.  He who overcomes
	 will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son."
	 (Rev 21:6-7)

Jesus:	"Behold, I am coming soon!  My reward is with me, and I will give to
	 everyone according to what he has done.  I am the Alpha and the Omega,
	 the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."  (Rev 22:12-13)

Both Jesus and God are the "Savior"

God:	"'For I am YHWH your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior...'"
	(Isaiah 43:3)

God:	"'I, even I, am YHWH; And there is no savior besides Me.'" 
	(Isaiah 43:11)

God:	"'And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior'" (Luke 1:47)

God:	"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our
	hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of
	believers."  (1 Tim 4:10)

Jesus:  "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it
	is He who will save His people from their sins." (Matt 1:21)

Jesus:	"for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior,
	who is Christ the Lord."  (Luke 2:11)

Jesus:	"'...for we have heard for ourselves and know that this one is indeed 
	the Savior of the world."  (John 4:42)

Jesus:  "'And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name
	under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.'"
	(Acts 4:12)

Both Jesus and God are the "King"

God:	"For YHWH is a great God, and a great King above all gods."
	(Psalm 95:3)

God:	"'I am YHWH, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.'"
	(Isaiah 43:15)

God:	"But YHWH is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting
	King..." (Jer 10:10)

God:	"And YHWH will be king over all the earth; in that day YHWH will be
	the only one."  (Zech 14:9)

Jesus:  "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?'"  (Matt 2:2)

Jesus:	"...He who is the blessed and only Soveriegn, the King of kings and
	Lord of lords..."  (1 Tim 6:15)

Jesus:	"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome 
	them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings..." (Rev 17:14)

Jesus:  "And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF
	KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."  (Rev 19:16)

Both Jesus and God are "Judge"

God:	"...For God Himself is Judge."  (Psalm 50:6)

God:	"Before YHWH, for He is coming to judge the earth..."  (Psalm 96:13

God:	"...For we whall all stand before the judgment seat of God." 
	(Rom 14:10)

Jesus:	"'For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all 
	judgement to the Son,"  (John 5:22)

Jesus:	"For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ..."
	(1 Cor 5:10)

Both Jesus and God are the "Light"

God:	"For Thou art my lamp, O YHWH; and YHWH illuminates my darkness."
	(2 Sam 22:29)

God:	"YHWH is my light and my salvation..."  (Psalm 27:1)

Jesus:	"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light
	shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
	(John 1:4-5)

Jesus:	"There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens
	every man." (John 1:9)

Jesus:	"Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the
	world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall 
	have the light of life.'" (John 8:12)

Both Jesus and God are the "Rock"

God:	"'For I proclaim the name of YHWH; ascribe greatness to our God!  
	The Rock!  His work is perfect..." (Deut 32:4-5)

God:	"'For who is God, besides YHWH?  And who is a rock, besides our God?'"
	(2 Sam 22:32)

God:	"'He will cry to me, "Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of
	my salvation."'" (Psalm 89:26)

God:	"'It is YHWH of hosts whom you should regard as holy.  And He shall be
	your fear, and he shall be your dread.  Then He shall become a 
	sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a
	rock to stumble over.  And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of
	Jerusalem.'"  (Isaiah 8:13-14)

Jesus:	"Therefore says YHWH God, 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a 
	tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
	He who believes in it will not be disturbed.'" (Isaiah 28:16)

Jesus:	"...upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades
	will not overpower it." (Matt 16:18)

Jesus:  "He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, which became
	the very cornerstone."  (Acts 4:11)

Jesus:	"...for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them,
	and that rock was Christ." (1 Cor 10:4)

Both Jesus and God are the "Redeemer"

God:	"'Thus says YHWH, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel..." 
	(Isaiah 48:17)

God:	"...And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel..."  (Isaiah 54:5)

Jesus:	"In Him we have redemption through His blood..."  (Eph 1:7)

Jesus:	"...He entered  the holy place once for all, having obtained
	eternal redemption."  (Heb 9:12)

Both Jesus and God are "Husband"

God:	"'For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is YHWH of hosts;...'"
	(Isaiah 54:5)

God:	"'And it will come about in that day,' declares YHWH, 'that you 
	will call me Ishi [i.e. my husband] and will no longer call me
	Baali [i.e. my Master].'"  (Hosea 2:16)

Jesus:	"'Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins,
	who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom.'"
	(Matt 25:1)

Jesus:	"'...So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot
	fast.  But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away 
	from them, and then they will fast in that day'" (Mark 2:29-20)

Jesus:	"For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed
	you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure
	virgin."  (2 Cor 11:2)

Jesus:	"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church
	and gave Himself up for her"  (Eph 5:25)

Jesus:	"'Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the
	marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself
	ready.'"  (Rev 19:7)

Jesus:	"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven
	from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband."  (Rev 21:2)

Jesus:	"'Come here, I shall show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb'"
	(Rev 21:9)

Both Jesus and God are the "Shepherd"

God:	"YHWH is my shepherd.  I shall not want."  (Psalm 23:1)

God:	"Oh give ear, Shepherd of Israel..."  (Psalm 80:1)

God:	"Know that YHWH Himself is God; it is He who has made us, and not
	we ourselves.  We are His people and the sheep of His pasture."
	(Psalm 100:1)

God:	"Like a shepherd He will tend His flock, in His arm He will gather
	the lambs, and carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead the
	nursing ewes."  (Isaiah 40:10)

Jesus:	"'I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me'"
	(John 10:11)

Jesus:	"Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great 
	Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant,
	Jesus our Lord"  (Heb 13:20)

Jesus:	"For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have 
	returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls."  (1 Peter 2:25)

Jesus:	"And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading
	crown of glory."  (1 Peter 5:4)

Both Jesus and God are the "Creator"

God:	"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  (Gen 1:1)
	
God:	"'Of old Thou didst found the earth; and the heavens are the work of
	Thy hands.'"  (Psalm 102:25)

God:	"...The Everlasting God, YHWH, the Creator of the ends of the earth..."
	(Isaiah 40:28)

God:	"'...I, YHWH, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens
	by myself, and spreading out the earth all alone.'"  (Isaiah 44:24)

Jesus:	"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came
	into being."  (John 1:3)

Jesus:	"For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and the 
	earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers
	or authorities -- all things have been created by Him and for Him.
	And he is before all things, and in Him all things hold together"
	(Col 1:16-17)

Jesus:	"Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.
	And the heavens are the works of thy hands;"  (Heb 1:10)

Jesus:  "For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so
	much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.  For
	every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God."
	(Heb 3:3-4)

Both Jesus and God are the giver of life

God:	"'See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me; it is
	I who put to death and give life...'"  (Deut 32:39)

God:	"'YHWH kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up.'"
	(1 Sam 2:6)

Jesus:	"'For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even
	so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes." (John 5:21)

Jesus:	"...I myself will raise him up on the last day."  (John 6:40)

Jesus:	"...and I give eternal life to them..."  (John 10:28)

Jesus:	"I am the resurrection and the life"  (John 11:25)

Jesus:	"'...and you are unwilling to come to me, that you may have life.'"
	(John 5:40)

Jesus had authority to raise even Himself from the dead

	"'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up'...He
	was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19,21)

	"'For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life
	that I may take it again.  No one has taken it away from Me, but
	I lay it down on My own initiative.  I have authority to take it up
	again.  This commandment I received from My Father.'"  (John 10:17-18)

Jesus has authority to forgive sins -- only God can forgive sins

	"And Jesus, seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'My son, 
	your sins are forgiven.'  But there were some of the scribes sitting 
	there and reasoning in their hearts, 'Why does this man speak that
	way?  He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?'"
	(Mark 2:5-7)

	"...He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all 
	our transgressions,"  (Col 2:13)

Jesus received worship -- only God can receive worship

	"'...For it is written [Deut 6:13] "You shall worship the Lord 
	your God, and serve Him only"'"  (Matt 4:10)

	Barnabas and Paul rebuked people for worshipping them (Acts 14:11-18)

	Angels refuse worship (Rev 19:10, Rev 22:9)

	Angels commanded to worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6)

	"'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?  For we saw His
	star in the east, and have come to worship Him.'"  (Matt 2:2)

	"...and they fell down and worshipped Him; and opening their treasures
	they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh."
	(Matt 1:11)

	"And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them.  And they came up and 
	took ahold of His feet and worshipped Him."  (Matt 28:9)

	"And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him..."  (Matt 28:17)

	"And he said, 'Lord, I believe.'  And he worshiped Him." (John 9:38)


Jesus is omnipresent (Is present everywhere at the same time)

	"'For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there 
	I am in their midst.'"  (Matt 18:20)

	"(Now this expression, 'He ascended,' what does it mean except that
	He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?  He who 
	descended is Himself He who ascended far above all the heavens, that
	He might fill all things.)"  (Eph 4:9-10)

Jesus is omniscient (Is all-knowing)

	"'Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone
	to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.'"
	(John 16:30)

	"'...Lord, you know all things...'"  (John 21:17)

Jesus is omnipotent (Is all-powerful)

	"'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth'"
	(Matt 28:18)

Jesus is pre-existant (Existed before all things)

	"'I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am
	leaving the world again, and going to the Father."  (John 16:28)

	"He was in the beginning with God."  (John 1:2)

	"'And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the
	glory which I had with Thee before the world was.'"  (John 17:5)

Jesus is eternal (beyond the limits of time)

	"...And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
	Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."  (Isaiah 9:6)

	"...His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
	(Micah 5:2)

	"'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.'  
	(John 8:58)

	"...and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His 
	kingdom will have no end."  (Luke 1:33)

	"Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither 
	beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God,
	he [Melchizedek] abides a priest perpetually."  (Heb 7:3)

Jesus is immutable (does not change)

	"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever."
	(Heb 13:8)

Jesus spoke with authority

	"Truly, Truly I say unto you..."  (not "Thus saith the Lord")

	"'Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'"
	(Mark 2:28)

	"'Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and
	scribes...'"  (Matt 23:34)

	"'If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.'" (John 14:14)

	"follow Me."  (not just "follow God")

Disciples prayed to Jesus

	"And the went on stoning Steven as he called upon the Lord and
	said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'  And falling on his knees,
	he cried out with a lound voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin 
	against them!'  And having said this, he fell asleep."  (Acts 7:59-60)

	"Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it [thorn
	in flesh] might depart from me.  And He has said to me, 'My grace
	is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.'  Most
	gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that
	the power of Christ may dwell in me."  (2 Cor 12:8-9)

	"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the
	Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.
	And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we
	ask anything according to His will, He hears us."  (1 John 5:13-14)

	"'Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord
	that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.
	For I wee that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage
	of iniquity.'  But Simon answered and said, 'Pray to the Lord for 
	me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon
	me'" (Acts 8:22-24) [In verse 16, Jesus is the "Lord"]

Problem scripture:

	"Hear, O Israel!  YHWH is our God.  YHWH is one!"  (Deut 6:4)

Expl:	Hebrew word for "one" is <achad>, which means "united" one, rather
	than <yachid>, which means "only" one.  <achad> is same word used 
	in Gen 2:24 "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his
	mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one
	flesh"

Problem scriptures:

	"the Father is greater than I"
	Jesus didn't know "day or hour" of his return
	Jesus prayed to the Father
	etc.

Expl:	Jesus lowered Himself while on earth, giving up many of his privileges
	as God.  Jesus provided example to men about how to lead a perfect
	human life.  Jesus was both perfect God and perfect man.

Problem scripture:

	Jesus was "begotten"

Expl:	"begotten" does not mean "created".  What God begets is "God", just as
	what man begets is "man" and what animal begets is "animal".  What
	God creates is not God (e.g. man, angels), and what man creates is not
	man (e.g. house, computer).

Problem scripture:

	Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15)

Expl:	Word used for "firstborn" is <prototokos>, not <protoktistos>, which
	means "first-created".  "Firstborn" can mean either literal "first 
	person born", or "pre-eminent" one.  In Jewish culture, the literal 
	"firstborn" male normally inherited the position of pre-eminence 
	("heir", "first in rank").  [See Jeremiah 31:9 -- "Ephraim is my
	first-born".  Joseph had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, and Manasseh
	was the literal firstborn (Gen 41:50-52).  In Genesis 48, Ephaim is
	given title of "firstborn".  Also see Psalm 89:27 which says that 
	God will appoint Jesus as "firstborn" -- verb is future tense, thus
	Jesus "firstborn-ness" must have been bestowed upon Him after Psalm
	was written.

Problem scripture:

	Jesus said he was the "beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14)

Expl:	Greek word for "beginning" is <arche>, which can also mean "source"
	or "origin".  <arche> is used in Rev 21:6 "I am the Alpha and the
	Omega, the beginning and the end", and in John 1:1 "In the beginning
	was the Word...".

Problem scripture:

	"God said, 'Let us make man in Our image'..."  (Gen 1:26)

Expl:	The word for "God" in the Hebrew is <Elohim>, which is plural.  We
	know that no "seperate being" participated with God, because Isaiah 
	44:24 teaches us that YHWH was alone when He created the universe, that
	He did it by Himself.  

Problem scripture:

	"No man has seen God at any time..."  (John 1:18)

Expl:	Careful examination of the passage yields one of two possible
	interpretations:  1.  It is the "Father" being referred to in the
	first part of the sentence.  2.  The passage is stating that no one
	has seen God in His entirety.  Remember that God manifested Himself
	physically to men many times in the Old Testament.

Problem scripture:

	"Why do you call me 'good'?  No one is good except God"  (Mark 10:18)

Expl:	Jesus was 'good' -- there was nothing 'bad' about Him.  Therefore he
	must be either be God, or He is not 'good'.  Jesus is challenging us 
	to evaluate what we think about Him.  Perceiving Him as a "good 
	teacher" is not good enough.  We must believe that He is God.  And 
	following "God" is not good enough.  Jesus said in verse 21:  

		"...follow Me"