Who IS Jesus?

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. TJ says:

    Tom,

    Being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’d like to clear up an apparent misunderstanding above. While we do believe there is biblical reason to associate Jesus with the archangel Michael, the Bible explicitly refers to Jesus as “the last Adam”. (1 Cor. 15:45)

    We believe Jesus’ sacrifice redeems mankind because he was the equal of Adam. Adam was created sinless and thus perfect; he lost that condition by his decision to disobey. By remaining faithful in that same condition, Jesus was able to freely give it up in behalf of all of Adam’s descendants that put faith in him. So only by becoming a perfect man could Jesus pay back what Adam had lost.

  2. Simply because the Bible refers to Jesus as the “last Adam” does not make Him and Adam equal. This is eisegesis, forming an opinion nased on a verse that fits your desired intention. If you properly exegete the Word, and entire “counsel of God” as Paul calls it in Acts 20, you find verses like Heberews 2 and I Peter 3 that sow that jesus was above tha angels, and made to but just a little below them as He became man. This is not possible if He was for ABOVE them before hand.

    Paul deaqlt strongly with the heretical deception of the early first century as false teachers even then came to try and paint Jesus as less than the Son of God. Such is not the case.

  3. TJ says:

    Tom, the point of my post was not to argue whether or not you agree with our understanding of scripture, it was to correct a misunderstanding of our beliefs in your post above. Your response shows further misunderstandings of our beliefs, as we certainly view Jesus as the Son of God (but not God the Son, which certainly requires eisegesis).

  4. I’m happy to be corrected if in fact I am wrong. If we are to be open to the truth of scripture, we must all be open to the fact that a particular doctrine we hold true, may in fact be false. But the Bible must be the standard and not tradition or any extrabiblical writings.

    The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus IS God. The scond member of the Godhead including God the Father, Jesus (God the Son), and God the Holy Spirit. Proper exegesis of scripture cannot deny this. If your traditions, interpretations or changing of biblical scriptures make Jesus anything less than God, than you have made the Bible less than the true Word of God.

    Make no mistake, I fully underdstand your doctine: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20090401a/article_01.htm
    The JW doctrine is the total denial of the Trinity which is in fact a biblically heretical doctrine. It is for that reason that the JW and Watchtower Society are not accepted as orthodox Christians by any other orthodox Christian group – same as the Mormon church.

    I’m not angry or bitter and I do not speak in hate. But I must speak out when a response is given the is less than factual. Terminology is critical to proper understanding. The Jersus you teach (Not God, Not part of the TRinity) is NOT the Jesus of the bible. And so there we must part ways.

  5. TJ says:

    Tom, you say “[m]ake no mistake, I fully underdstand your doctine”, yet above you said that from our view “[Jesus] could not have paid the price for mankind’s sins not being our kinsman redeemer.” We in fact do believe that Jesus became a human, our kinsman, in the fullest sense of the term in order to become our savior.

    I understand that you’re full of zeal and ready to speak boldly about your beliefs (and others’), but what you have done above, perhaps unknowingly, is create a strawman argument. That’s all I’m trying to point out to you.

    Now, if you care to discuss the Trinity from a strictly biblical standpoint, I’d be happy to address that with you for a time. Simply stating over and over again that it’s true and we are heretics isn’t really all that productive or convincing.

  6. TJ,

    The discussion of the Trimnity has been settled from the time of Christ and before. Genesis 1 did that. It is a fact that is not open to theological debate to Orthodox Christians. It is a foundational standard for accepted biblical orthodox Christianity. I have seen the arguments, read your web site, debated them in person and in print, and do not need to do so again. My comments or apologetics on the subject would only be regurgutating responses that have been made since time immemorium. Both you and I know the resources for that argument are in plethora all over the internet.

    What I’m a little disturbed with, is that you quoted me as having made a comment I never made. In quotations you referenced a comment I made by saying, “[Jesus] could not have paid the price for mankind’s sins not being our kinsman redeemer.” I made no such statement.

    Jesus did in fact pay the price for the sin of all mankind. But as scripture states that all man is born with sin, that sin entered all mankind through one man, then no “man” who was only man could pay the price. That’s why Jesus, fully God and fully man, born of a virgin, sinless, had to take on that role. Your remarks elude to an idea that Jesus could not have done so if He were “God”? But perhaps you just meant “God alone?”

    The bottom line here is that we are talking about two different people. Jesus according to scripture, was THE One and only Son of God, fully God and fully man. Not a created being, but Eternal in the Heavens – and this is where the JW faith gets it wrong, to the point where the denomination had to change the biblical text in John Chapter 1 to make it meet their doctrine. “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God, and the Word was with God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Your denomination, made of sinful men, changed that phrase to read the “the word was [a] God…” Jesus was not “A” God, He IS THE God.

    Most cults will work in the same manner. Proposing to be Christians (when no quality or respected religious resource in the world agrees), trying to be like Christians to give your cult some sort of legitimacy, you use the same terms that Christians use, but with different definitions in a well orchestrated and purposeful manner to deceive people from the truth. In doing so, you become unwitting agents of the enemy.

    The JW Jesus, is NOT the Jesus of the bible. So any explanation of the work your Jesus has done for mankind, is in fact moot to this argument, and germane only to a cultists interpretation.

    I apologize if my apologetics seem as if they are a personal attack. They are not. TJ, I pray that the blindfold of ignorance and deception be removed from all people who have fallen prey to false doctrines and false teachers. My job is not to belittle you, but to protect the flock which I serve, and to make certain that unbiblical doctrine is strongly refuted here on my blog for the protection of all true belivers and seekers who might be reading. We may not be doctrinal borhters, but you are a creation of God, and for that I owe you the utmost respect.

  7. TJ says:

    Hello Tom, you said:

    What I’m a little disturbed with, is that you quoted me as having made a comment I never made. In quotations you referenced a comment I made by saying, “[Jesus] could not have paid the price for mankind’s sins not being our kinsman redeemer.” I made no such statement.

    Yes you did. That statement is from your original post above, and is the reason for my responding to you in the first place. There your said:

    The Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is “Michael the arc angle” (and thus he could not have paid the price for mankind’s sins not being our kinsman redeemer)

    Such a statement reveals that you don’t really understand how we view Jesus Christ, despite your saying that you do. This is really a strawman argument whether you realize it or not.

    The rest of your response seems to be just more tactless statements of your beliefs, for which you evidently are unwilling to discuss the scriptural backing. Perhaps you feel that I’m blinded Tom, but I’m here willing to actually engage the scriptural evidence and not simply pronounce judgments again and again.

  8. Ahhh.. yes. I did make such a statement. But in context, as you can see, it applies to Jesus in the case of Him being just an angel, and not fully God as the Bible defines Him.

    This blog is not meant or designed to be a place to hold theological debates. It is a place for me to expound my thoughts, my feelings as they apply yo the events taking place in my life. I do not wish this thread to become a debate over JW’s theology or a source for apologetical debate. I can give you plenty of links to sites that have already accomplished such tasks.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: