afriendinJesus

Hello, all I was a member of the Way from 87-93 well from 86-93 to be exact. I never left the ministry per-say, but had moved to an area where they did not have any twigs. I during my involvement never tried to bring up the deity of Christ, nor the Trinity due to the fierce confrontation it brought on my initial 1st time bringing up the subject. I was literally mind blown to have a bible speaker to firmlY tell me its "BS".He didn't use the abreviation either, but firmly said the word. I was 16 at the time and wasn't really allowed to speak about God at home. I wasn't allowed to have God in my home- my father didn't allow that "crap" so to speak not my words. I was so happy to sneak off to twig because it allowed me to have a bible study in my life secretly behind my fathers back. I just decided to keep quiet on the Deity of Christ and I never brought up Trinity ever again.Once the WOW year was over for the crew that shared with me for a year some wow brothers stayed and some left and I found myself under new leadership. The new leadership assumed that I believed that Jesus wasn't God and after so long of involvement I quietly was in torment about it especially after being a PFAL grad and being involved for many years. I was encouraged during this time to take part in witnessing to people as a group - perhaps at a mall or other places. In my heart I frel that Jesus was indeed Deity so how could I go preach to someone otherwise. I at that time didn't realize the importance of the matter and being the foundation stone of the Christian faith- that is to Trinitarians and its denial would be denying the Lordship of Christ- the one whom we call upon for salvation. I after not participating with witnessing began to be looked at in a very negative sense - all the while I never explained as to why because it was assumed that I believed like those in the Way on this subject. I enjoyed the people in the Way and never spoke agaist it- I didn't understand how to defend the deity of Jesus, plus I was not 100% convinced of it to begin with, I just knew that it bothered me to not worship JESUS AS GOD. I had hoped that PFAL would answer the question for me but it did not. Weirwille in his exegesis of John 1:1 was in my opinion incomplete but I dare not question the authority that I placed myself under at that time I was just so glad to have a place to go and sing songs and here bible and have people accept and love me. It was a break from the alcoholic abuse that plagued my life at the time. Norman Giesler an apologist stated that in John 1:1 the word was with God for all eternity and that the word was a person- namely God according to this passage, but not the Father.(Correcting the Cults)The John 1:1 section. Wierwille as we know keyed in on the word "with"= pros in the Greek- if my memory serves me correctly his definition was "together with but distinctly indepedent of" and at this point uses it against Jesus beingcalled God, because he used it to say that the WORD was distinctly independent of God and therefore can't be God. I was surprised that Trinitarian apologist accepted this definition of "pros" as being sufficient, butyet also incomplete. It as well carried the meaning of great loving intimacy between the Word and the God, which suggest relationship. It also carried the meaning of a face to face loving intimacy between the word= Jesus and the God= Father as the context of John 1 declares in verse 18. A loving intimacy between the two since eternity.Trnitarian apologist when I say accept the definition they although didn't accept the result of Wierwille's conclusion that the word was not God. Weirwille spoke of John 1:1 applying it to the spoken and written word but not necessarily to a person that is of course until he used it to refute Jesus being God - which in my opinion was actually an admittance that the verse was indeed about Christ to begin with- in his mind due to him using it to refute Jesus as God. This was 23 years ago, so if i'm not remebering correctly don't fault me to hard please. I was left bewildered after PFAL, I just decided to put it on the back burner so to speak and enjoy fellowship with people- which was nice. In John 1:1 we have the useage of theos twice one with the article and one without the article. What I mean is the word was with Ton Theon or ho theos= the God and the Word was theos. The article "the"=ho theos= God. To put it simply the word was with THE GOD= Which we know is the Father. The word was God. THEOS EN HO LOGOS= The Word was God. In the Greek the actual wording places theos at the beinning of the sentence structure as in "Theos en ho logos" = God/god was the word. To the Trinitarian scholar- the word "Jesus' was with the Father in a loving intiment relationship for all eternity and was in a face to face loving relationship and was together with but yet distincly independent of the Father but still God. Phillip B. Harner broke it down by showing the word order that John used and stated what was meant by what he said and by what he didn't say. He did this by arranging the word order as well as leaving it in Johns original fashion. He stated that the usage of theos=God/god at the beginning of the sentence was to guard against thinking the word was a second God/god as in an hellenistic sense. He stated "that to place theos at the end of the sentence which John did not do would probably mean that the Word was a god, or a divine being of sometype", but not God as in the word was god, the original clause had theos at the beinning so to come up with the word was god or a god John would have had to place theos at the end of the sentence rather than at the beginning- which he did not do. John instead placed theos= God/god at the beginning to draw empahsis to the nature of the word. That the word shared in the nature of the God with whom he stood in relationship with.When one understands that the second usage of theos is qualatative in meaning = meaning that the word shared in the same nature as the Father with whom he stood in relation. You could then say that the word was God due to being of the same nature as the Father. That the word was no less than the God= the Father with whom he stood in an intiment relationship with.As William Barclay noted in his book Many witnesses, One Lord he gave us an example. If I say James is "the man" I identify James as someone im particular, this would be equivalent to The God as far as an example, if I say James is man without the article in front of man as in "the man" but rather said James is man = word was God then the word man becomes a qualatativesense discribing the nature of James meaning that he is human. IN tHis case in John 1:1 the word God/theos likewise becomes discriptive of the Word's Nature. That is if James is man, then the word theos/ God used in referce to Christ would mean that the Word was in the order of being as God, belonged to the same class as God- that is to say that the word as to his essential nature was that of Deity, what God was the Word was as well. This is why it is translated the word was God. It is not saying that the Word is the Father, it is saying that the word was in the bosom of the Father- hence sense in the Father's bosom hence the same nature, yet disticntly independent of the Father. To clarify this lets insert women in place of the word and man in place of God. In the beginning was the woman and the woman was with the man, and the woman was man. together with the man yet distincly independent of the man but yet of the same nature involved in a loving intiment relationship with the man. She came out of man from his bone and his flesh and was named Adam along with Adam. Genesis 5 vs 1-2, that is if I am remembering correctly. Philip B Harner, volume 92 in the Journal of Biblical literature, 1973 if I'm remembering correctly showed that the second usage of God in John 1:1 in his opinion was qualitative in meaning that the word was no less than the God with whom he stood in relationship with. That the Son/word/logos = Jesus was by way of nature was equal to the Father= the God.(John 5:18) Hence the term Son of God was a claim to equality to God, thus called for a stoning John 10, or resulted in a crucification as we know. Christ knew full well the implications of what it meant to claim to be God's Son and how it was perceived to the Jewish leaders. He knew that it would require his death by claiming this equality. What is God's nature? is it created or uncreated? The word likewise would have to be of the same uncreated nature according to the Trinitarin faith, thus equality would not be meant. That all men may Honor the Son even as they Honor the Father. John 5:23. If Christ was not equal to God, his statement would take on blasphemy according to Trinitarians. That would mean that the Son deserved the same worshipful honor as the Father received. If the Son was worshipped once in scripture, then the supposed position of Weirwille would crumble. Thomas declared unto Christ My Lord and My God, to Weirwille was a Hendaidy sp? meaning one by means of two. such as Lord and God in John 20:28, Weirwille defined this as My Godly Lord, to avoid the Deity of Christ. Apologist refute this as a false and personal definition because it would also allow for the word order to say my Lordly God, plus it couldn't be an hendaidy due to the word my accompanying both nouns Lord and GOD. The actual wording is The Lord of me and the God of me spoken to Jesus by Thomas and Christ accepting it and not rebuking Thomas for this worship. The Greek word Pros= with as in the word was with the God no way violates the Trinitarian view of God and never has.Weirwille gave a true but also incomplete definition to the Greek word Pros in John 1:1. Weirwille sounded very scholastic with his knowledge of the use of hendaidys but used it incorrectly towards John 20:28, with doubting Thomas, he should have also stated that there is another hendaidy in scripture namely Titus 2:13 awaiting the glorious appearing or our great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ. God and Savior applying to the coming of our God and Savior Jesus Christ at his appearing. The Father is neversaid to appear in the coming ever in scripture. God and Savior thus applying to one by means of two discriptions of the one appearing that is Jesus Christ. Just something to consider, This has been the view of the church before the council of Nicea extending to the early church fathers such as Polycarp, Ignatius both of whom were in the time of the original apostles. Justin Marytr as well said Christ was God and in every generation the early church fathers declared it leading up to the council of Nicea. I would recommend reading Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin, especially on the Jehovah Witness section. I would also direct you to the men listed during this discussion, such as : Phillip B Harner, WillIAM Barclay- who isn't a Trinitarian by the way. Julius R Mantey, Ron Rhodes- Reasoning with The Jehovah Witnesses in Scripture, Norman Giesler - Correcting the Cults. Other Books "Putting Jesus in his Place" also Doctor J. Juedes "About the Way International" website- its an apologetic website and also shows proof of Weirwille's plagerizing, especially that of his book receiving the holy spirit today. This is not meant to offend anyone but just to add another view especially to those who had the Deity of Christ stripped from them by the way international as I did, perhaps I was not an isolated case- surely not. If I can be of any help to anyone you may reach me here on this forum, not to dispute, LORD KNOWS I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. I don't claim that at all, but I have useful knowledge of many faiths and study many view points so I can know how to relate to people of different faiths such as a use of terminolgy. Resurrection to a Jehovah Witness means that Christ never rsoe physically from the grave but was instead recreated as a spiritual being, all the while every resurrection that took placein scripture was a physical resurrection from the grave. It is good to know and understand as many faiths as you can to better related to individuals in a loving non condemning way. I leave you with these words of Christ John 2:19-23 Tear down this temple and 3 days I will raise it up. The temple was the temple of his body=soma= his body= his flesh= his person= his humanity. IfChrist said that HE would raise his temple in 3 days then wouldn't this mean that something about Christ survived death? and since he stated "I" WILL RAISE IT UP, Who does he believe himself to be? Since God alone resurrected Jesus. The Father raised up Jesus, Jesus raised himself as well John 2:19-23 and so did the Holy Spirit Romans 8:11, Now if the spiritof him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal bodies through the spirit that dwelleth in you. Thus you have Father, Son, and Spirit working in harmony in the resurrection. Thats Trinity. The Father spoke, the Holy Spirit descended Jesus received Baptism. Trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God : John 20:28, John 1:1, Titus 2:13, Revelation 1:17 Cross refernce Isaiah 44:6 and all 50 somethings uses of the term "Son of God"=equal to God, Christ raising his flesh shows his spiritual identity. The Holy Spirit is called God in acts 5 vs 3-4. Thats Trinity. Christ is also called immanuel = with us is "the God". It is in possession of the definite article= ho theos= the God. The wise man offered INCENSE, AND THE FELL AT HIS FEET AND WORSHIPPED HIM? INCENSE IS INDICATIVE TO TRUE WORSHIP. Saul martyred christians for "calling upon the name of the Lord as in Jesus, Jesus was being called upon this is why he persecuted the church unto death, because they called upon Christ as Lord God, To call upon is to invoke, adore, and worship that is Jesus Christ. To call upon Jesus was an act of worship. To call upon him to adore him to invoke= pray to him, to worship him, therefore Saul/ Paul led a persecution against the 1st century church because they worshipped Jesus Christ. If you confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that "God" raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. Christ raised himself from death as well John 2:19-23. For whosever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. To call Christ Lord is to call him "Yahwey"=LORD. The context shows that the LORD that Paul said to call upon in context was Jesus and to call upon him is equivalent to calling upon the LORD YAHWEY of the old testament In joel 2:32. Paul took this old testament verse applied to GOD and placed it right on Jesus as the Lord to call upon for salvation which would be blasphemy if Jesus wasn't God. I and the FATHER ARE ONE. Echad= hebrew word for one= for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be ONE=EChAD flesh. It was the composite unity of the two to make one. I and the father are One. Here oh Israel the Lord our GOD is "ONE"=echad Lord. Christ was the only begotten God, this is what the "OLDER Manuscripts attest to about Jesus in John 1:18. The newer manuscripts say the only begotten Son, I chose to think that the older manuscripts are more accurate. Just an observation. To call Christ Lord is to call him Lord and God, that is exactly what Thomas did in John 20:28. The Lord "YAHWEY" is my "SHEPARD" pSALMS 23, Christ said I am "THE" Good Shepard and then said a few verse later I and the Father are One. In the beginning was the woman and she was with the man and was man. One flesh= echad, same nature two persons to make Adam her name was ADAM. Genesis 5;1. IF =Adam and eve can be one and have the same name and flesh, why Can't the Father and Son be one and be the One same God? can man out do God? If Adam was not solitare being made in God's image why should God be solitare? Since the hebrew word for ONE= ECHAD was used to show that Adam and Eve were One Flesh doesn't this show that God speaking of being ONE LORD= ECHAD Duet 6:4 would this show the possiblity of composite unity within the Godhead? Since both verses use Echad for the word One=echad doesn't this give a whole new meaning to Jesus statement in John 10, I and may Father are "ONE". It must have they tried to stone him and then retake him at the end of the chapter. I remember the words of Jesus "all things the Father has are mine" While what a statement, wow what a blasphmous statement "wow" all the things that Father has are MINE. All his power, All HIS GLORY, ALL HIS PRAISE, ALL HIS WORSHIP, ALL HIS HONOR, ALL MEANS ALL. Either Christ was blasphemous or he was trully LORD AND GOD. Love you all, Brant Fitzgerald. Know one can say that Christ is Lord=Yahwey except by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comforts, teaches, commands, forbids. These attributes are all indicative of a personality. For only a person can do these things. and who is this person according to Acts 5:3-4? It is also indicative that Christ received all power in heaven and earth, carries the same titles of God such as Bridegroom, First and Last, Zacahriah 2:10-11 God sent God to dwell among men. the word was God, the only begotten God, John 1:18. I am the bread that came DOWN from heaven. Father Glorify me with the "GLORY" I had with the before the world was. John 17:5 Micah 5:2 he will be born in bethelehem and his goings forth are from days of eternity. God in Isaiah shares his Glory with NO ONE. yet Jesus shares in it in John 17:5, if Jesus said I am the first and the last who can be that except GOD? I know I mispelt a few words in here please be forgiving loveyou all.

Hello, everyone, I took PFAL, back in 1987 and being a Trinitarian as I was at the time and Weirwille's use of the Greek word "with" = Pros, Together with but distinctly independent of. I was surprised at this, I was equaly surprised that Trinitarian theolgians as well state that this is a an accurate definition for the Greek word Pros- meaning that the word was with the God. Have any of you since came to believe that Jesus is indeed God since leaving the Way?

Wow, that sounds so familar and I thought that was just at my local twig, lol Seriously, It was how the Deity of Christ was taken from my life at least for 10 years. IT Was more of a scolded topic rather than a serious logical discussion.