See for more themes.
| Q1: Seeking Salvation : Why Jesus died? We ask the JW.org, why Jesus died for us? Jehovah Witnesses claim (Quote) Our Saviour existed in the OT and the NT. Time does not exist before earth creation, hence according to Einstein time is relative anyhow. And the consciousness of events only moves forwards, not backwards and nothing ages whatever people mean by that term. The concept of time began only from the moment of earth creation:- Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (KJV) All translators refuse to acknowledge the correct Hebrew word order, and this is noted by Gerald Schroeder. Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were day one. (Ancient Hebrew) The concept of the theory of relativity is even in Scripture! Go figure ! Notice how our Saviour's birth came to be, and His Name:- Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (KJV) Mt 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus,* for he will save his people from their sins. (New World Translation from JW.org) Footnote * : Corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua, or Joshua, which means 'Jehovah Is Salvation.'( SOURCE) In Hebrew, this would be written as:- Here from Jeff Benner's video, he suggests the name written here for all major languages. Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yehoshua: for he shall Yasha his people from their sins. (Hebrew version using Jeff Benner) In Hebrew the ROOT verb "yasha" is also related to the ROOT noun "yasha", both have similar meanings. This is also true of another Hebrew word "yashuah" meaning salvation. Notice JW people agree the Saviour in the NT in Greek is called Jesus and in Hebrew is called Jeshua or Joshua. With different spelling this could also be Yashua or Yashuah. If you look at Strong's dictionary assuming this is an authority for OT Hebrew, we find, "Yahowshuwa" is a name for "Joshua" which is a combining of "Yahweh and yasha", as JW people say, "Jehovah saves", is a name for Jesus. But so are other names of Jesus listed: Strong's suggests these as alternative names for Jesus. But one could also add:- You will notice in Matthew 1:21 our Saviour's name in the NT comes from a verb "yasha". In Hebrew both verb and nouns are related, as well as similar words with similar spellings. The other "names" are similes of Jesus, given to other humans: If we have a look at the Hebrew 03444 (Yashuw`ah) as "Yashuah" we see: Noticing the mixing of precepts of men and the traditions of the JW people by adding meaning to the Saviour's Name. They say Yashua means "YHWH is salvation". Why do JW scholars do that? Do not use Strong's for translation. JW scholars have only looked for one of many sources of Scripture for Jesus. But at least they acknowledge one place. Many scholars on Jeff Benner's old forum, do not acknowledge Jesus as a promised messiah at all. (This old forum, does not exist. Jeff closed it down. Nobody was supporting him, or his views, except myself.) It is extremely difficult to convince others who have a different world view to you, that other translations are possible. Quote: " A translation of the Biblical text is a translator's "interpretation" of the text. The translator's beliefs will often influence how the text will be translated and anyone using this translation will see it through the translator's eyes rather than that of the original authors. Only by studying the original language of the Bible can one see and understand the text in its original state." (Jeff Benner's book, learning to read Biblical Hebrew, page 1) So if you have no world view that respects Jesus you will unconsciously not translate His Name in the OT. I have found this is the case for fluent Hebrew speakers, who assume the modern grammar for reading Ancient Hebrew is the same, following the same rules. Such people boast modern Hebrew is not much changed from Ancient Hebrew. Such people do not acknowledge the Ancient Hebrew pictograph theory, and they say Jeff Benner doesn't use this theory either when translating the OT Hebrew. True. Jeff doesn't. In fairness to the Ancient Hebrew language, originally in pictograph script, the rules of grammar are also unknown, so one should treat the words with holy respect, and not assume anything. There are many other OT places, where Jesus might be found:- Gen. 49: 18 I will wait for salvation from you, O Jehovah. (New World Translation from JW.org) Ge 49:18 I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD. (KJV) Ge 49:18 I have waited for thy Yashuah-YHWH Hebrew speaking scholars say proper nouns do not have suffixes added to the proper noun, hence "yashuah" is a common noun meaning, "Salvation". Ge 49:18 I have waited for thy salvation YHWH But than reading the added Noun, seems confusing, so "translators add" an English phrase: Ge 49:18 I have waited for thy salvation O YHWH. The Author doesn't know enough about Ancient Hebrew suffixes in the pictograph theory to answer these questions. So translating Hebrew according to rules of grammar depends upon the assumptions of rules you adopt. A fluent speaking Hebrew reader would use modern rules of Hebrew grammar to read Ancient Hebrew writings, assum ing the rules are the same. Reading through a few Hebrew bits of sentences, with prefix and suffix coloured yellow, the root Hebrew words coloured black, readers notice how these yellow letters play among words. Some scholars say Proper Names do not have prefixs? Hang on Noah does in Gen 7:1 and Gen 6:13. Also Elohiym does in Gen 31:11. In Gen 49:18 "yashua" is coloured before and after the word with yellow. Does this suggest a common word, rather than a Proper name? I don't know. Neither do Modern Jews reading the Hebrew. You cannot assume modern speaking Jews understand the Ancient Hebrew grammar rules. They are not necessarily the same rules. Can modern speaking English readers, read Ancient English here? Well I can't. So it's not good to say we can assume the grammar rules are the same. And just to confuse English readers even more, with the poem Bilingual Beowulf, the Author shows the AngloSaxon English, and two English translations by two different English translators. As readers ponder over the passage, both English translators translate the older English into modern English differently. Therefore not even English scholars agree over translating Ancient English into Modern English. The Matthew text says Jesus name means to save us from sins, so its a single verb, not representing the NAME OF THE FATHER as "Jehovah saves". It is true the Father sent His Son in order to save sinners, (hence Joshua in the OT was a figure of "YHWH saves"); but the Name given to Jesus in Matthew 1:21, is a verb only. This verb is "save" or "saving" or "salvation". All three descriptors of Jesus are found in the OT. Again in Genesis 49:18 the passage does not have all those extra words: "for salvation from you, O Jehovah" The Hebrew has "suffix yashuah YHWH", that's it, two Hebrew words side by side, with the suffix before yashuah. The passage in Hebrew says: "I will wait for thy yashuah YHWH", assuming the suffix is "thy". JW people claim "yashuah YHWH" is the Father in heaven, but the Matthew 1:21 says differently. It says "Yasha" would save us from our sin-offerings. Exodus 14:13 Then Moses said to the people: "Do not be afraid.+ Stand firm and see the salvation of Jehovah that he will perform for you today. (New World Translation from JW.org) Ex 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: (KJV) Again this is a translator's translation... The passage says in Hebrew: Ex 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see "Yashuah-YHWH", which he will shew to you to day: (Ancient Hebrew) In this case, it seems the passage has "at" a direct object, and "yasha" with suffix, and YHWH. The rules of suffix say the "yellow letters" is a feminine plural. The Author sees a feminine plural as a responder to the masculine provider. So yes the verse says "see THE Yashua responding to Father-YHWH". At a secular translation "See the salvation of YHWH" is OK. But we also need to see that salvation flows from the Father via the Son. In other words the provider provides and the responder responds. This is how Hebrew writes. It also shows why Hebrew has masculine nouns (providers) and feminine nouns (responders). It also shows that salvation is not from Jesus alone, or from the Father alone. Love is relational and requires a circuit of providers and responders together completing the circuit of love. This is what I see learning from the pictograph level of reading prefix and suffix so far, but I read as a child, some scholars might say, playing games with Hebrew. There is a special place in the New Testament, where Jesus is walking with two fo llowers of GOD, but are stuck reading the OT scriptures in Hebrew. Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (KJV) 1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. Scripture makes prophecy that the OT original tongue of Hebrew, would go out in another tongue as a refreshing to other people. This implies new words such as "expound or translate or intrepret" as commonly used in the Greek NT, because the Greek NT was a translation of a Hebrew NT. These verses show that Jesus interpreted the OT tongue originally in Hebrew, to followers as they walked along the road for over an hour, because either the followers were stuck reading the OT in Hebrew, or some were Greek followers and could not read the OT in Hebrew very well. Perhaps Jewish translators like ours today make fuzzy writings. So if Jesus spent over an hour talking and translating the OT in Hebrew to these men, where are the clear OT Hebrew scriptures that speak CLEARLY of Jesus Christ? For more see: Why Jesus died acording to Jehovah Witnesses:- The prophet Isaiah foretold that the promised Messiah's suffering and death would provide atonement for the sins of humans. (Isaiah 53:5, 10) Jesus clearly understood this, and he willingly gave "his soul a ransom in exchange for many." (Matthew 20:28) His sacrificial death opened the way for imperfect humans to have a good relationship with Jehovah and to be rescued from sin and death. Jesus' death opens up to us the opportunity to regain what Adam and Eve lost? This passage as nice as it reads does not explain why Jesus died? What has been the result of Adam's failure to obey? The Bible answers this way: "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12) By disobeying God, Adam sinned. He thus lost the prospect of endless life and eventually died. Being his descendants, we have inherited his sinful condition. As a result, we are subject to sickness, old age, and death. This explanation of why we die is in harmony with what we know today about heredity. But has God done anything to remedy the situation? This passage reads OK. The wages sin pays is death," says the Bible at Romans 6:23. This means that death is the consequence of sin. Adam sinned, so he died. Likewise, we sin and are therefore subject to sin's wages, death. But we were born in this sinful condition through no fault of our own. In Hebrew the Greek translation misses a slight difference in Hebrew words, "chata" means to "sin" or "miss" and "chataah" means "sin-offering", the thing we do regarding our "sinning" confessing our "sinning" unto a "sin-bearer" who is Jesus. So the "wages of sin-offering is death" is the Hebrew way of saying Romans 6:23. The Bible explains it this way: "Just as through the d isobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19) Jesus was that "one person." He left heaven, became a perfect man *, and died in our behalf. As a result, it is possible for us to have a righteous standing with God and gain the prospect of endless life. The Greek word translated as "made" confuses many reading Scripture. The passage says we are "ruled as sinners", not "made sinners from birth". For more see How to study Words Why, though, was it necessary for Jesus to die to accomplish this? Could not Almighty God have simply issued a decree that Adam's descendants be allowed to live forever? He certainly had the authority to do so. But that would have disregarded his stated law that the wages of sin is death. That law is no petty rule that can be dismissed or changed for convenience. It is fundamental to true justice.? Psalm 37:28. Again the JW people have not answered the question, why Jesus died? However, why did Jesus have to suffer and die in the painful way that was described in the Gospels? By subjecting himself to the extreme test and remaining faithful, Jesus refuted once and for all the Devil's claim that humans would not remain loyal to God when under trial. (Job 2:4, 5) That claim might have seemed valid after Satan induced perfect Adam to sin. But Jesus? who was Adam's perfect equivalent? remained obedient despite severe suffering. (1 Corinthians 15:45) He thus proved that Adam too could have obeyed God if he had chosen to do so. By enduring under trial, Jesus left us a model to follow. (1 Peter 2:21) God rewarded his Son's perfect obedience, granting Jesus immortal life in heaven. "Leaving us a model to follow" does not explain why Jesus died? Adam might have known about this statement of Jesus in OT times: Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.(KJV) So Adam did what he could in his own human powers, He chose to lay down his life for his wife, and ate the forbidden fruit. Such was his love for her. So the Author goes looking into what JW people say about certain passages:- Even the life of the unborn is precious in God's eyes. In ancient Israel, if someone harmed a pregnant woman and either she or her baby died as a result, God considered the guilty party a manslayer, and he had to pay "life for life."* (Read Exodus 21:22, 23.) Imagine, then, how Jehovah must feel when he sees countless unborn babies deliberately aborted each year, many sacrificed on the altars of expediency and sexual liberation. Sadly they do not consider other aspects of this verse. Concerning God's statement, "the life of the flesh is in the blood," the journal Scientific American notes: "Metaphorical significance aside, the statement is literally true: each type of blood cell is required for life." See Awake! of August 2006, pages 3-12, published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Bringing in other human sources to prove there is "life in the blood" is besides the point. The JW people do not have a real understanding of where "life comes from". Bible lexicographers state that the wording of the Hebrew text "apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to injury done to the woman alone." Note, too, that the Bible says nothing about the age of the embryo or fetus being a factor in Jehovah's judgment. Indeed other aspects of this verse are not considered. But JW people are correct in saying we should not spoil the living baby that begins living inside the womb. God, however, "loves justic e." (Psalm 37:28) Even though he could not ignore the deliberate act of transgression on the part of the first man, God has not condemned all humanity to suffering and death forever on account of one man's disobedience. On the contrary, by applying the legal principle of "life for life," he has balanced the scales of justice and made everlasting life possible once again for obedient humans. (Exodus 21:23) The question is, How could Adam's loss of perfect human life be recovered? The answer: Someone had to offer up, or sacrifice, a life of equal value to Adam's? - a perfect human life. Here JW people come close to the text and it's understanding. "Life for life" is a profound statement in Scripture. Clearly, no imperfect descendant of Adam was capable of offering such a price, but Jesus was. (Psalm 49:6-9) Born without the stain of inherited sin, Jesus was perfect, just as Adam had been. Thus, by surrendering his life, Jesus ransomed mankind from slavery to sin. By so doing, he offered descendants of the first human couple the opportunity to enjoy the same perfect life that Adam and Eve once did. (Romans 3:23, 24; 6:23) There are some major shifts in meaning here, mixing truth so to speak. (Quote) Born without the stain of inherited sin, Jesus was perfect, just as Adam had been.(endquote) This implies Jesus was born as a human like Adam, before He fell. This is different to sheep blood sacrifice, though they are sinless, their nature is fallen, because of Adam's sin. If GOD required a sinless sacrifice that was unfallen in nature, no animal could be used for sacrifice because all animals have fallen natures, as a result of Adam's first sin. The fact that GOD required animal sacrifice proves fallen natures was part of the simile for a Divine Sacrifice. If Jesus had unfallen flesh, he had a distinct advantage over mankind who have fallen natures, so why did Satan tempt Him so much? Such a Being would be impossible to tempt because He has no propensities of weakness. If Jesus had an unfallen nature or unfallen flesh, why wasn't he genetically the same size of Adam, before his fall? The Jews would have noticed a giant among their midst, but they notice nothing unusual about Jesus. What does Scripture say? Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Ga 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. All humans are born under law with fallen natures, that left alone will eventually die. It is like a curse, over us as a result of Adam's first sin. A saviour rescuing us from our fallen natures would have to come in a fallen nature, endure the curse of the law, in order to save mankind from it's curse. Scripture says Jesus was born under law, under its curse, and had to completely obey every teaching, or become a sinner like us. Coming clad in a fallen flesh of humanity with propensities of weakness, but without an evil propensity, placed Jesus like us at a distinct dis-advantage compared to Adam, who had an unfallen nature. The nazarite vow allows the Holy Spirit from birth to stop Satan ruling over the unborn baby, so such children are born not sinning. Other such children born this was was Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist. These men did eventually sin throughout their life, but Jesus never did. Not only did Jesus have to fully obey the law, He also had to support His Father fully, in order to establish another means of salvation, not based exclusively on the works of the law, but on supporting Jesus, who obediently followed the law. Thus Jesus provided an alternative way of salvation for sinners, through Him, when we support Jesus, He supports us. For more, see Supporting Jesus by faith So Jesus was not just a perfect unblemished body, like sheep were supposed to be in sacrifice. Sheep also never sinned, unlike humans who intentionally sin against GOD. So why couldn't a perfect unblemished sheep and it's life in the blood atone for man's sinning? The JW people have missed something here, they have not explained why Jesus died? Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (KJV) (quote) Someone had to offer up, or sacrifice, a life of equal value to Adam's? - a perfect human life. (end quote) This is NOT what "life for life" means. The JW people have mis-understood what the principle "life for life" means. You might wonder: How is obeying involved? Did Jesus not say that "whosoever believeth in him" will have everlasting life? Yes, belief, or faith, is essential. However, it is important to remember that in the Bible, faith is much more than simply believing. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, the word used by John in the original language signifies "reliance upon, not mere credence." In order to have God's favor, one needs more than a mental recognition that Jesus is the Savior. The believer must also sincerely endeavor to apply what Jesus taught. If there is no action, any profession of faith is hollow. "Faith without works is dead," says the Bible. (James 2:26) Put another way, what is required of the believer is that he exercise faith in Jesus? - that is, he must live in accord with his belief and faith. That is a good passage, almost saying we must "support" Jesus, the true meaning of "faith". For more, see Supporting Jesus Long before Jesus was born, the Bible foretold the coming of the one whom God would send as the Messiah, or Christ. The titles "Messiah" (from a Hebrew word) and "Christ" (from a Greek word) both mean "Anointed One." So in the OT we have "anointed one" as the Name for Christ. But we also have "Yashua" the Hebrew name for the Greek term Jesus. Sadly because JW people spell Yashuah as Jeshuah or Joshuah, they miss traditional spelling of our Saviour in Hebrew as yashua or yasha or yashuah. Hab 3:13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed; (KJV) Hab 3:13 You went out for the salvation of your people, to save your anointed one. (JW.org translation) Hab 3:13 You went out for the salvation of your people, (as) Yasha-Ashiyach. (Ancient Hebrew in Hebrew) Hab 3:13 You went out for the salvation of your people, (as) Jesus-Christ. (Ancient Hebrew in Greek) Neither KJV or JW.org are willing to translate or show Jesus Christ name in the OT. But its CLEARLY there, otherwise what was Jesus doing to those two followers on the road to Emmas, translating the OT Hebrew to them for over an hour? After seeing and hearing what happened, John had no doubt that Jesus was sent by God. (John 1:32-34) At the moment when God's spirit, or active force, was poured out upon him that day, Jesus became the Messiah, or Christ, the one appointed to be Leader and King.? - Isaiah 55:4. JW people do not see the spirit, as an independent Being, but as the Father's force, like an omnipresent finger. The Bible teaches that Jesus lived in heaven before he c ame to earth. Micah prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and also said that His origin was "from ancient times." (Micah 5:2) On many occasions, Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. (Read John 3:13; 6:38, 62; 17:4, 5) As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah. JW people say the Father created his first born Son long ago, as a "spirit creature". This is similar to angels who are also "spirit creatures" I suppose? Is the firstborn Son equal to God, as some believe? That is not what the Bible teaches. As we noted in the preceding paragraph, the Son was created. Obviously, then, he had a beginning, whereas Jehovah God has no beginning or end. (Psalm 90:2) The only-begotten Son never even considered trying to be equal to his Father. The Bible clearly teaches that the Father is greater than the Son. (Read John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3) Jehovah alone is "God Almighty." (Genesis 17:1) Therefore, he has no equal. JW people have a major shift regarding who Jesus is as a Being? JW people see Jesus as a "spirit creature" before Mary's time, and a "spirit creature with humanity" after Mary's time. This means Jesus as a Being is not "elohiym" as a kind. It also implies "elohiym" is not a "family kind of beings". Jehovah and his firstborn Son enjoyed close association for billions of years? - long before the starry heavens and the earth were created. How they must have loved each other! (John 3:35; 14:31) This dear Son was just like his Father. That is why the Bible refers to the Son as "the image of the invisible God." (Colossians 1:15) Yes, even as a human son may closely resemble his father in various ways, this heavenly Son reflected his Father's qualities and personality. (Quote) "As we noted in the preceding paragraph, the Son was created" (Endquote). And (Quote) Yes, even as a human son may closely resemble his father in various ways, this heavenly Son reflected his Father's qualities and personality. (End quote). This is NOT possible to say this. If a carpenter human kind creates a wooden toy, that does not make the toy a son, and the carpenter his father? Neither can one of Elohiym, who is beyond matter; create a creature of matter, say to that which created it, you are my Son, I am your Father. This is a terrible mis-use of words and meaning of Father and Son. Many other religious people who say differently, that if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have been from eternity, uncaused as Beings, how can you have a "Father and a Son"? Is this not mere role playing? Who says the meaning of "ab" and "ben" means in Hebrew "father" and "son" anyway? Just because GOD is not of matter, chooses to show us darkly similes of GOD does not mean GOD is exactly like those similes. A simile is a simile for a reason. The Hebrew word "ab" means "provider" not "father" anyway. How does the Author know this so easily? Try fitting "father" into all the contexts of "Ab"? Song 6:11 I went down into the garden of nuts to see the fruits of the valley, (KJV) Song 6: 11 "I went down to the garden of nut trees+, To see the new growth in the valley (JW.org) Ps 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.(KJV) Ps 103: 13 As a father shows mercy to his sons, Jehovah has shown mercy to those who fear him. (JW.org) Translators have problems with Hebrew forms of "ab". Here is the only consistent meaning for all contexts of "Ab":- .. Song 6:11 I went down into the garden of nuts to see the "providers" of the valley, (Ancient Hebrew) Ps 103:13 Like as a "provider" having compassion for his "son", so YHWH has compassion on them that fear him.(Ancient Hebrew) Psalms 103:13 is interesting as it has all three members of Elohiym referenced as Hebrew words, trying to tell humans made of matter, what Elohiym is like who is not made of matter. So Elohiym is not role playing. From eternity love as an uncaused cause came into being as three functional descriptors of loving. Love needs a provider of love with a responder to that love. And love flows from the heavenly home across the nations of creation. Now how else can elohiym, who is not of matter show humans who are subject to matter, show us the invisible nature of love as Personal Beings? This leads to another fundamental error of some who do not define "elohiym" correctly. The heavenly Father, whatever that term means is not "almighty god" whatever that term means, and Jesus is not "a god" or a "lessor god" whatever that term means. How does Scripture define elohiym? Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God (Greek theos, Hebrew elohiym) , who created all things by Jesus Christ: Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Elohiym is defined as a Divine Family in heaven, where the family members are, the "Provider", the "Responder" and the "Son", who continues the Divine Home of Love over the nations of creation. That's not role playing. From Eternity Love consisted of these entities or Personal Beings. Love also comes in two personalities of loving, the maleness-love personality and the femaleness-love personality. For more see (3) Heavenly Family is like water (11) Holy Spirit shows femaleness-love In the New Testament you see Jesus supporting His Provider in heaven. The word "support" implies "one is reliant upon the other", and this is how functional faith works. Religions use this concept wrongly to say Jesus was different in terms of things than His Provider in heaven. For more see (1) Faith study with examples of support (3) Believers must support Jesus Jehovah's only-begotten Son willingly left heaven and came down to earth to live as a human. But you may wonder, 'How was it possible for a spirit creature to be born as a human?' To accomplish this, Jehovah performed a miracle. He transferred the life of his firstborn Son from heaven to the womb of a Jewish virgin named Mary. No human father was involved. Mary thus gave birth to a perfect son and named him Jesus.? - Luke 1:3 0-35 JW scholars twist Scripture because the normal use of "born" requires parents: Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (elohiym). If the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Father's force, we have essentially one Being, making the incarnation, but the words "overshadow" and "born" require two Beings to make things happen. This means it takes two parents to make "born" happen. It takes two objects to make shadows, one object is a source of light, the other object partially blocks the light, making a shadow. Indeed if Jesus was a spirit creature, the Father need only come and the earthly Mary would supply the other part of incarnation, so we satisfy "born" and "overshadow". But if Jesus is a member of elohiym, the divine part and the human part requires a divine "mother function" as well as a earthly "mother function". So for the divine we have the Father and the Holy Spirit as heavenly parents, and for the earthly part, we have Mary and her gamete supplying help for the incarnation of Jesus, who was fully divine and fully human, in this process. This process is not considered by JW scholars. PEOPLE who believe the Trinity teaching say that God consists of three persons? - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these three persons is said to be equal to the others, almighty, and without beginning. According to the Trinity doctrine, therefore, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. Sadly mixing of the precepts and traditions and commandments of men happen lots. This causes the words of Scripture to become sealed, so we become "unlearned". Hence we feel we have to trust our scholars to translate Scripture for us. Is this what Scripture teaches? Isa 29:11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:(KJV) If Scripture words are sealed, and we all have to trust our translators, are we not following man and the traditions of man? Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For more see Many who believe the Trinity admit that they are not able to explain this teaching. Still, they may feel that it is taught in the Bible. It is worth noting that the word "Trinity" never occurs in the Bible. Correct, "trinity", doesn't occur, so we should not use this human definition of Elohiym. Ephesians 3:15,16 defines GOD as a Family. Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek. Later, translators rendered the Greek text into other languages. A number of Bible translators, though, did not use the phrase "the Word was God." Why not? Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word was God" should be translated differently. How ? Here are a few examples: "The Logos [Word] was divine." (A New Translation of the Bible) "The Word was a god." (The New Testament in an Improved Version) "The Word was with God and shared his nature." (The Translator's New Testament) According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. * Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah's creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god." Here the term "god" means "mighty one." Writing this human explanation causes mixing and confusion. The JW people also assume the word "god" is found in our Bibles. It's not found there.So the Father is not a higher "god" and Jesus a lower "god", there is not Hebrew word for "god" anyway. There terms are forced upon us by human translators and the traditions of English. "el" means "strong authority" not "god". A mute point perhaps. The Father is often referenced as the highest or most high, thus in terms of family, is our overall provider. Most humans would consider earthly family of parents to be "equal" whatever that term means. Our heavenly family is not any different. We should try to make Scripture simple, because the teachings are simple, so even a child understands. Regarding the end of this system of things, he quotes Jesus as saying: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36) How do these words confirm that Jesus is not Almighty God? In Jewish weddings, the exact time of the wedding was left to the Father. Let's not get too bogged down in complexities. The holy spirit is God's power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:?35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.? - Psalm 104:30; 139:7. In the Bible, the word "spirit" is translated from the Hebrew word ru'ach and the Greek word pneu'ma. Most often, those words refer to God's active force, or holy spirit. (Genesis 1:2) However, the Bible also uses those words in other senses Often the Holy Spirit is like an active force, or agency or medium, for a reason. JW people say the Holy Spirit has no name. That is not true, the real name for the Holy Spirit as a personal Being is SHADDAY. For more see (2) Study of Shadday or Holy Spirit At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon. (Genesis 49:1, 2; Matthew 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. Let us consider Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael. Yes Jesus had other functional descriptors in the OT. He was the head over the army of angels. He was the messenger for His Father. He was the one who "saves" and is "Saving" and brings "salvation". That was a long webpage for readers, but it is important to see how other religions become mixed with mixing of themes. (This concludes looking at JW.org translations) When we study scripture, we are to look up all the Jesus commands, every line of Hebrew, a little here and little there. Not just pick and choose which is for us. Next we look at "Why Jesus died" using EGWwritings.org, what SDA people say.. |
Created by Rob Thompson. Hosted since 10/01/2012. Visitors HOSTED by Prologic, my Son. A thin website.
This study uses the Jehovah Witness New World Translation found online. 
The Name has pictograph pictures which mean: "The active pressed secure watching Person!", and is a picture of Jesus with active hands, pressing to securely rescue sinners, watching for opportunities to save. Behold the Divine Being! The spelling and pronouncation of such words is lost. Using pictograph spelling we have "LSFOE", one can debate if the first letter is a J or Y or even a L. Remember GOD mixed the original "one lip" of Adam and Eve, after the flood for a reason, so different sounds mix things. So it doesn't matter, how you say the Name. What is important is we find the OT Name in Scripture, as easily as Jesus did translating the OT Hebrew to his followers on the road to Emmas. (See Luke 24:27) 
