Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Response to "Evidence for Christianity"

In response to:
Although the page is directed toward Jehovah's Witnesses (we are not with that organization), we have found so much false information on this page, that we feel a need to respond to what is being said there.
The name of the page is entitled:
How do I show to my Jehovah Witness friend that Jesus is not the Archangel Michael?
Although we are not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, we believe that the Christian scriptural evidence does indeed lead to the conclusion that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. What is not discussed on the page is the fact tht most of the protestant reformers believed that Jesus is Michael. Thus, this teaching is not something new or unique with the Jehovah's Witnesses, although the reformers usually attributed the Archangel as being uncreated. Since we have discussed all concerning this that is presented on by "Evidence for Christianity" elsewhere, we refer to:
The true scriptural evidence of Christianity as found in the Bible is that Jesus is not Ehyeh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that he is God's firstborn creature. Jesus is indeed now exalted high above the angels, he is no longer a little lower than the angels as he was while in the days of his flesh. I do not believe that in the scriptures Jesus has never been of the class that is referred as "angels" in Hebrews 1.
See:
The part that of even greater to concern to us, however, are those statements made concerning Charles Taze Russell.
Was Russell the Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as claimed on that page?
No, he was not.
Did Russell Teach That Only His Followers Are Saved?
Absolutely NOT! This appears to be attributing the teaching of the JWs to Russell. Indeed, he believed in the ransom for all. What Russell taught was almost the opposite of what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.
See:
Did Russell use language that was unique to his movement, such as the word "Jehovah"?
We would say that every denomination, sect, or movement has some language that is unique to that particular group; however, "Jehovah" -- God's Holy Name as found in the King James Version and the American Revised Version (now American Standard Version) was not at all unique to Russell or the Bible Students movement at all.
See our research regarding:
Additionally, we highly doubt that Russell would have ever thought of the Bible Students' movement as being "his movement".
Did Russell predict the end of the world for 1914, using Daniel 8:14?
Absolutely NOT! Russell presented several lines of Biblical prophecies that lead to the year 1914, but Daniel 8:14 was not one of them.
See:
However, it is misleading to say that Russell was expecting the end of the world in 1914, although one could draw such a conclusion from his earlier statements. In 1876, Russell accepted and adopted Barbour's conclusion that the time of trouble was to end in 1914. However, in 1904, ten years before 1914, Russell rejected that idea and came to believe that the time of trouble was to begin, not end, in 1914, and that the finally passing away of the present heavens and earth would be sometime after 1914. Although Russell, from the first issue of his magazine, preached against the traditional "end of the world" as preached by most Adventists, one could definitely say that after1904 Russell was NOT expecting "the end of the world" in 1914. Russell did not, however, believe the "end of world" -- Armageddon -- as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach it; he was not expecting millions of unbelievers to be eternally destroyed.
See:
When the end of the world did not come in 1914, did Russell say that "we have entered the Investigative Judgement"?
First of all, Russell was NOT expecting the end of the world to come in 1914, nor did he change his view concerning the beginning of the time of trouble as beginning in 1914. He died in 1916 still with the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914, just as he believed before 1914, except that in 1915 he appears to have separated the battle of Armageddon from time of trouble, in that he presented the battle as being the final phase of the time of trouble.
We did an computer search of Russell's works for the phrase "investigative judgment", as well as "investigative judgement" and could not find any place that Russell ever used such a term; we are not sure what the author of "Evidence of Christianity" page is referring to concerning Russell allegedly claiming that in 1914, "we have entered the Investigative Judgement." We suspect, however, that the author has confused Russell with Rutherford, or with what the JWs teach, or perhaps with the 7th Day Adventists.
Did Russell Make a Lot of Money From the Movement?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! If making money was his aim, it would have been a lot easier for him to make a lot of money if he had kept his chain of clothing stores. Instead, he divested himself of his fortune in order to provide funds for the spreading of the Gospel.
Did Russell sell "Miracle Wheat"?
Russell himself did not sell any of Stoner's Miracle Wheat, nor did he originate the name "Miracle Wheat', nor did he originate any of the claims for Stoner's Miracle Wheat.
Was "Miracle Wheat" a scam?
NO!
Was Russell sued regarding Miracle Wheat?
NO!
See:
Did Russell's Wife Divorce Russell Because of Marital Unfaithfulness?
NO! Mrs. Russell stated in court that she was not accusing Russell of adultery.
Was Rutherford hired to keep Russell out of jail?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! No authority was ever threatening to put Russell in jail, thus no lawyer was needed to keep Russell out of jail.
Did Rutherford continue the policies of Russell?
Absolutely NOT! In a very short time after Russell's death, Rutherford virtually destroyed the legal entity that Russell had left, and had reconstructed it so that it would serve as a basis for creating a new religious organization.
Did Russell teach that Jesus is "not deity"?
No, Russell did teach the deity of Christ, but he showed from the scriptures what this deity means.
Did Russell Teach that the Holy Spirit is a force for good, rather than a part of God?
We did a search of Russell's works for the phrase "force for good", and could not find any. We are not sure that Russell ever defined the Holy Spirit as being a "part of God", but as we might speak of our finger as a part of us, so we could refer to God's Holy Spirit as being a part of him, since Jesus referred to God's Holy Spirit as God's finger.
What Russell taught concerning God's Holy Spirit may be found in Studies 8-11  of:
Did Russell teach that the only true acceptable name for God is Jehovah?
The question, in the very way it is asked, is highly deceptive, and is evidently designed with the thought that the English word "Jehovah" is being claimed to be the only acceptable spelling and pronunication of God's Holy Name in English. Russell never taught such an idea (nor, as far as we know, do even the JWs teach such an idea). The Bible, however, only speaks of one Holy Name; it never speaks of Holy Names (plural).
See:
The 144,000 of Revelation 7, 14:
Niether Russell's view or our view is the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. However, ultimately God is the one who will decide who will live in heaven and who will live on earth.
See:
Of course, there were no "JW members" in the days of Russell -- Russell did not believe in such sectarianism; nevertheless, Russell taught that there were many amongst all the Christian sects and denominations that would be in heaven. Our own views, however, although different from Russell's in some applications of scripture, but we acknowledge, as did Russell, that God's true church may be found amongst all the Christian denominations.
Regarding Hell, Soul, Spirit and the condition of the Dead
Did Russell teach there were no true Christians at all until he came to call people back to the true gospel?
No, Russell did not teach such a doctrine.
What about the faithful and discreet slave (faithful and wise servant)?
See our conclusions:
Did Russell Forbid Blood Transfusions?
No.
See our conclusions on this:
What About Holidays?
Regarding the Cross
Did Russell claim to be "the sole interpreter of the Bible"?
No.
Is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No, no where in the scriptures is Jesus ever presented as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Indeed, Jesus is always distinguished as being sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
See:
Doesn't John 1:1 Say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No. See:
Does John 1:14 say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No.
See:
Does the Bible present Jesus as being uncreated?
No.
See:
Was Jesus Worshiped?
Yes, but not as being the only true God who had sent him. -- John 17:3.
See:
Does a comparison of Colossians 1:16 with Hebrews 2:10 prove that Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah), the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No.
See:
Does Hebrews 1:2 show that Jesus is the Creator of the entire universe?
No.
See:
Didn't Jesus, by his words recorded in John 8:58, claim to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? (Exodus 3:14)
No.
See:
The rest to be added later, God willing...
One can find that on close examination, however, that none of the scriptures present the idea that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. See:
Regarding Eternal Punishment, Hell, Soul, etc.
See:

Into Darkness and Russell

While we are not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, we have been several times directed to video on youtube entitled "Into Darkness -- Jehovah's Witnesses History -- Scans Provided". While the video is directed toward Jehovah's Witnesses, much of the video is directed towards Charles Taze Russell, who was never a member of, and never spoke on behalf of, the organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses.
While there is much in the video we would not disagree with, there is also much that we do not agree with. We will be presenting here much of what we disagree with about the video; nevertheless, this does not mean that we are agreement with each and every point presented in the video simply because we failed to address the point in this response.
The video relates to Brother Russell coming "under the influence" of Jonas Wendell. This, we believe, is misleading. We have discussed this in our research: Jonas Wendell's 1870 Presentation
More to be added later, God willing....
=============== Below are notes that we plan, God willing, to eventually edit:
Russell was not expecting "the end of the world" in 1914 and plainly stated such. See my research regarding Russell and the "end of the world": http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=21
As far as Russell was concerned, he had already came to believe that Jesus would not return in the flesh a few years before 1874. For him, the usage of the word parousia gave a confirmation of his earlier conclusions, that Jesus had sacrificed his flesh, and thus was not raised in the flesh, but rather in the spirit.
Russell was certainly not preaching eternal destruction by God to bring people into subjection to any organization. Russell's view of Armageddon was totally different from that which Rutherford later promoted. Russell believed that Armageddon was be a time of period in which the people of the nations would be chastised, not eternally destroyed. Thus, the message of "good news of great joy that will for all the people" that Russell preached was almost the very opposite of the "bad tidings of great woe that will be for most of the people" that Rutherford began to preach. http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=10
Russell did not use God's Witness in Egypt to predict dates, but rather to corroborate dates found in the Bible. http://ctr.rlbible.com/?page_id=2853
Russell himself, did not use Phrenology to determine the character of men. He made some suggestions related to phrenology, but he never said anyone had to accept those suggestions or else they were not Christian, etc. http://www.htdbv8.com/1907/r4028b.htm http://ctr.rlbible.com/?p=512
Regarding: Can Restitution Change the Ethiopian’s Skin? http://ctr.rlbible.com/?p=1441
Regarding: Russell and Adam's Suicide I am not sure what one finds wrong with the Russell statement in the Photo-Drama: http://ctr.rlbible.com/?p=3097

Some Historical Inaccuracies Related to the Bible Students

By Ronald R. Day, Senior
This post is in response to an alleged "Apologetic Study: Introduction to Jehovah's Witness Beliefs", that appears on a site, evidently owned by Catholic. We are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, but the article does present several misleading and/or false statements concerning Charles Taze Russell. The article is presented by Alfredo Nevarez. We do not attack Mr. Nevarez personally, but we do wish to present the facts related to many of his statements, especially as related to Charles Taze Russell. This work is in progress, which means that we will be adding more to this, God willing, as time permits. =================================================
It is claimed that Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1872. This is false, since Russell never founded the Jehovah's Witnesses movement at all. Russell was never a member of the Jehovah's witnesses organization, and he did not believe in such an organization. Russell preached against such human authoritarianism, and certainly should not be considered the founder of that in which he did not believe, and which he preached against.
In 1872, however, I am not sure what one considered that Russell founded or started on that day; Russell was associated with a small Bible study group in Allegheny, PA (now part of Pittsburg); that group, however, was not started in 1872, but was already in existence in 1872. Russell does mention that it was 1872 that the group came to a clear understanding of the ransom; however, the JW leadership today has rejected the view as Russell and his associates came to understand in 1872. After Russell died, Rutherford first began to reject the basis of the ransom around 1923, with his new light concerning the second death. In 1938, Rutherford openly rejected the very basis of the Ransom that Russell and his associates had understood in 1872.
See our research: The Watchtower's Self-Contradiction About the Ransom Adam and the Ransom Sacrifice Nevertheless, that small group in 1872 could hardly be the founding point of the Bible Students movement, and most definitely not the founding year of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which was actually founded by Joseph Rutherford after Russell died.
For proof, see the research under Charles Taze Russell and Jehovah's Witnesses
It is asserted that at the age of 20, Russell began preaching that there is no hell. This is misleading, since Russell did preach concerning the Bible hell; he was not preaching that there is "no hell". Russell learned from some of his predecessors what the real Bible hell is, and that is what he began to preach.
See the archive related to Russell and "Hell".
It is asserted that Russell borrowed "heavily from the ideas of J. H. Paton who published his works under the title Day Dawn". Actually, Paton's "Day Dawn" was a rehash of "The Three Worlds" that had been published a few years before by Russell and Barbour. Russell already his his basic understanding of the divine plan befoe he Paton published the "Day Dawn".
It is asserted that Russell went on to claim that his works were divinely inspired; actually Russell, unlike Ellen G. White, disclaimed that his works were divinely inspired from the very beginning. See the Russell archive on "Infallibility".
Russell is referred to as though he were claiming to have been a "prophet" of God. In fact, Russell disclaimed being a prophet, and disclaimed that his conclusions were "prophecy". See our research on Russell and Bible Prophecy
It is asserted that Russell was "forced by federal authorities to return money to farmers whom he had sold his 'miracle wheat'". This is entirely false!!! No government authority ever ordered Russell to return any money concerning the sale of Stoner's "Miracle Wheat. Russell did offer to return the money to anyone who was dissatisfied with the wheat, but not one of those buyers of that wheat requested a refund, and thus none of that money was ever returned. By stating "his" Miracle Wheat, the impression is that Russell himself invented and made the claims for this wheat, which is false. It was Kenneth Stoner who first discovered this wheat, and who reported his own results regarding the wheat. Russell did present Stoner's claims and the claims presented in newspapers reports regarding this "Miracle Wheat", but the "Miracle Wheat" was not Russell's "Miracle Wheat", nor was it Russell or anyone associated with the Bible Students who gave it the name "Miracle Wheat".
It is claimed that "the only miraculous thing about the wheat was it's exhorbant price and outlandish claims." Russell never originated any claim for the wheat, except for the suggestion (not actually a claim) that the wheat may present an indication of the Millennial blessings that are yet to come. The fact is that many farmers testified in the court of validity of the claims of Stoner and others regarding the when wheat; although the Daily Eagle ignored all this, and focused on their alleged many government witnesses (which was actually only one witness who presented some alleged findings of some people who evidently somehow had "tested" a few of the wheat seeds and concluded that they were inferior).
Russell himself did not sell the wheat, nor did he set the price for the wheat. Those Bible Students who sold the wheat set the price at $1.00 a pound, which was 25 cents less than Stoner and some others had been selling the wheat. No one seemed to object to Stoner or anyone else selling the wheat for $1.25 a pound, but they did object to the Bible Students' selling of the wheat for $1.00 a pound.
See our documented research regarding Russell and Stoner's Miracle Wheat
It is being claimed that Russell "under oath in a court in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Russell stated that he was an expert Scripture scholar and was fluent in Greek." In fact, the actual court record shows that he disclaimed being a Greek scholar, and certainly that he never claimed to be "fluent in Greek". J.J. Ross very deceitfully rearranged various parts of the court record so as to make it appear that Russell claimed to be an expert. This has been pointed out many times, and yet Ross' deceitfulness continues to be repeated over and over.
See the archives on "Perjury" and "J. J. Ross"
It is being claimed that "in 1897 his wife divorced him for having adulterous affairs with two different women." In fact, the court records show that Mrs. Russell did not claim that Russell was had committed adultery at all. Mrs. Russell presented some hearsay testimony that was designed to marr Russell's character, but she denied that she was claiming that her husband had committed adultery. The testimony concerning this was stricken from the court record, but the Eagle ignored this. At any rate, the court records show that she filed for divorce on the grounds of "mental cruelty". The real reason for their separation to begin with was over the management she sought for the Watch Tower magazine, and her desire to use that magazine to promote her "women's rights" agenda, which Russell refused to allow her to do.
It is claimed "When the judge had ruled against him, Russell immediately transferred his property, worth over $240,000 to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." Actually, although this money was legally in Russell's name, it was being held in trust for use by the Watch Tower Society. Mr. Russell had created several side businesses that was intended to create funds for use by the Watch Tower Society, among them the one called "The United States Investment Company". This company was a partnership created by Russell; its capital stock was $1,000. Pastor Russell furnished that $1,000 out of his personal means. Nevetheless, this put any earnings from this "company" legally in Russell's name, although all the funds created through this company as well as other monies that Russell was holding in trust for the Watch Tower Society were eventually to be turned over to the Watch Tower Society. Mrs. Russell knew of this arrangement long before she even separated from Russell.
For more related to this, see the archive "Russell's 'Divorce'"
See also the archive regarding the "United States Investment Company"

Millennial Dawnists

It is stated that this "sect first was formally know as the Millennial Dawnists, then shortly thereafter as Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society." Of course, there was no JW "sect" in the days of Russell; Russell was a non-sectarian who believed that God's people could found amongst all the various denominations and sects that profess to be Christian. In 1881, Russell wrote his first volume of a series of Bible studies which he originally called "Millennial Dawn". Those who believed in the Millennial Kingdom of Christ as outlined in those volumes were dubbed "Millennial Dawnists" by others; this was never a "formal" name that these groups used of themselves.
"Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society" refers to the legal entity; the legal entity name that was used before this was called "Tower Publishing Company", not "Millennial Dawnists". The legal entity itself however is not the association of Bible Students that formed as result of Russell's work. It is correct that in 1896 the name was changed to "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society"; it continued to have this name until Russell's death in 1916. It is made to appear in the article that Russell, in 1909, changed the name of "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society" to "People's Pulpit Association", but that also in the same year, 1909, he changed it back to "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which really doesn't make a lot of sense. Actually, "People's Pulpit Association", as a legal entity, was formed in Brooklyn, NY, but this did not do away with the original entity that had been formed in Pennsylvania. In moving the headquarters to Brooklyn, Russell found that, in order to do business in New York, he had to form a new entity in New York. The formation of the new entity, however, did not do away the old entity. Many years after Russell died, Rutherford later had the People Pulpits Association renamed to "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc."

The Name "Jehovah"

It is claimed that the name Jehovah appears no where in Scripture. It is claimed that the name Jehovah is a mistranslation of the name Yahweh. It appears to be saying that "Yahweh" is found in the original King James Bible; if so, this is definitely false. It is claimed that the KJV "used Greek and Hebrew documents (Textus Recptus) that were later found to have had various mis-tranlations. These were later corrected, but the name Jehovah stuck." Actually, Nevarez presents several false statements that simply do not conform with the facts.
Regarding the English form, "Jehovah": Although many refer to this an English translation, it not actually a translation, but a rendering of the Hebrew name of God into an English form. Translated, it means, "He is, He will be, He causes to be", etc. The English form "Jehovah, as such, is not a different "name" than the name given in the original Hebrew as represented by the Hebrew tetragrammaton of God's Holy Name.
Nevarez appears to be confused concerning "Textus Receptus", since the Textus Receptus contains only the New Testament, which was written in Koine Greek, not Biblical Hebrew. However, the KJV rendering of the Holy Name as "Jehovah" appears not in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament. As far as we know, the Holy Name appears in all the known early Hebrew manuscripts and texts of the Old Testament. The KJV used the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament -- not the Textus Receptus; the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament is still the basic text that is used by most translations, although there are many translations of the Old Testament are based on the Septuagint, or the Latin Vulgate. God's Holy Name appears in the Masoretic text more than 6,000 times.
"Yahweh" also is a English form of that same name. Yahweh is based, not on the Hebrew as often claimed, but is evidently a contracted form of the Holy Name given in Koine Greek. The English form "Jehovah" is based directly on one of the forms given in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Neither form (Jehovah/Yahweh) has anything to do with the Greek Textus Receptus, which does not contain the name as either Jehovah or Yahweh. The Textus Receptus, based on the Greek manuscripts that do the same, usually presents the Holy Name in Greek words that are transliterated as KURIOS (Lord), THEOS (God), or some other word. The Textus Receptus does have the poetic short from of God's Holy Name in the term often rendered as "Hallelujah", meaning "Praise Jah". The Textus Receptus also retains the short form the Holy Name in various Hebrew names as rendered into the Koine Greek. Of course, neither the English form "Jehovah", nor the English form "Yahweh", can be found in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts as such, since neither language is English, and neither language complies completely with English spelling and phonemes. Indeed, there is a degree of uncertainly as to how phonemes were applied in both ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, and then there is a further degree of being inaccurate in transliterating words with the same exact phonemes of the original Hebrew and Koine Greek.
Indeed, none of the English forms of any Bible name given any in any English translation can be found in either the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, nor in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, not the form "Jesus", "Joshua", "Yeshua", "Yahshua", "Elijah", "Eliyah", "Elias", and on and on -- none of these are in the original Hebrew Bible nor in the original Greek Bible.
See our studies on God's Holy Name:

Denouncement and Hatred of All Religions

It is claimed that in 1872 Russell "stated that God rejected all existing Churches and that from thenceforward only Russell and his followers would be God's spokesmen." This is highly misleading. Russell did believe that in 1878, God's favor to the "nominal church" ended, as Jesus found the denominational systems of confusion to be wanting, and thus the invitation came to for God's people to get out of her. Russell did not set forth the claim that henceforth, "only Russell and his followers" would be God's spokesmen, although some statements, taken out of context, and placed in the context of present-day JW theology, could lead one to that conclusion. We do not, however, agree with all of Russell's conclusions regarding 1874. We may present more research related to this later, but to see what research we have done to date related to 1878 as related to claims people are making concerning Charles Taze Russell, see: Charles Taze Russell and 1878

Christ is not God

Although this section is directed towards the Jehovah's Witnesses, since we also believe that the Anointed One is not God, the Supreme Being, we will address this briefly. Of itself, the word "Christ", as applied to Jesus, indicates the one anointed by Jehovah, thus the word "Christ" itself indicates that Jesus is not God.* (Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1) The default reasoning should be that Jesus is NOT Jehovah who anointed him. The wording given in the "History" concerning what Russell believed concerning Michael the Archangel is worded in such a way as to leave a false impression. See: Russell and Michael the Archangel Michael the Archangel ========= * Our trinitarian neightbors, of course, invent and add to the scriptures the idea that it was one person of God who anointed another person of God, and thus explain away such scriptures by reading this idea into the scriptures. In reality, the scriptures are completely at harmony with each other without reading all of the trinitarian assumption into the scriptures.
Charles Taze Russell never denied the divinity of Christ, but he did show from the Bible how that divinity, as it would be applied by scriptural words to Jesus in the Bible, does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Russell stayed very close to the Bible on this subject, rather than all of the assumptions and additons to the Bible that the trintiarian dogma calls for.
For those who wish to search the scriptures for what they do say and what they do not say on regarding what other matters mentioned in this subheading, we recommend the following studies:

The Second Coming is Imminent... Again and Again

This heading is highly misleading, especially from the standpoint of Charles Taze Russell, since Russell, in 1876 adopted the belief from Barbour that Christ had returned in 1874, and he held to that belef until he died in 1916. He never spoke of second coming of Christ as being at any other time than 1874.
It is claimed that Russell adopted "the Adventist idea that the world would end any day". If by "Adventist", the "Second Adventists" are meant, actually, Russell rejected the Adventist's view of the end of the world. He rejected the idea that the planet earth and the whole material universe would and that only few of earth's billions would saved. In 1870, Russell rejected the Second Adventist idea of the end of the world, and never, until the day he died, accepted the Second Adventist idea of the end of the world. However, "Adventist" today often means to most people, 7th Day Adventist. Russell rarely used the expression "the end of the world" because, to many, that expression meant the end of the planet earth. He pointed out the in the Greek, it does not speak of the end of the world, but rather of the end of the age.
If by Adventist, the 7th Day Adventists is meant, Russell never adopted their view at all.
It is claimed that Russell "claimed to have calculated the year [of the end of the world] as 1874." Before 1874, it was not Russell, but rather Nelson Barbour and his associates who had "calculated" from the scriptures that Christ would return in 1874, and thus that the "end of world" was to be expected then. Russell rejected all of the dates set forth by any of the Second Adventist until the year 1876 (about two years AFTER 1874), when he accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned in 1874 as a spirit being. Sometime before 1874, Russell reported that he and the Bible study group he was associated with had already concluded that Christ was to return in the spriit, not in the flesh, since Jesus had sacrficed his flesh for our sins. He had not, however, set any date for the return of Christ, nor had he accepted any of the dates set forth by the Second Adventists, on up to 1876, two years after 1874. In 1876, he accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned -- invisibly -- in 1874.
Although speaking of Jehovah's Witneses
It is asserted that Russell claimed that Jesus did not actually return to earth, but rather "only to the 'upper air'". In reality, Russell never mentioned anything about "upper air", whatever that is supposed to mean. Russell did believe that Christ had returned invisibly to earth in 1874.
Armageddon in 1914 The statement is made that Russell "stated that Armageddon would begin in 1914." From 1904 on to 1914, yes, Russell was indeed expecting Armageddon to begin in 1914. However, the statement, as it stands in the context of the following statement, would imply that Russell was expecting something that he was not expecting. Russell did not believe in the Armageddon that the JWs preach; his idea of Armageddon was that it was a period of time in which the peoples of the nations would chastised (not eternally destroyed) in preparation for the Kingdom. It is stated: "While WWII did begin in 1914, by coincidence, the earth and all Churches were not destroyed." That Armageddon was to begin in 1914 does not necessarily mean the end of the churches, and most definitely Russell not expecting the end of the planet earth at any time whatsoever.
At this point a little history may be relevant:
In 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Armageddon (the time of trouble) had already begun in 1874 and that it would last until 1914 (40 years); shortly after 1880, Russell rejected Barbour's conclusion that Armageddon (as representing the time of trouble) had begun in 1874, but still believed that Armageddon would begin sometime before 1914 (1910 or 1911 was given as suggested dates), and that Armageddon would end, not begin in 1914. In 1904 (tens years BEFORE 1914), Russell realized that the ending of the Gentile Times would not signal the end of Armageddon, but the beginning of Armageddon. Russell held to this latter view on up to his death in 1916. Nevertheless, one should especially note -- for historical accuracy -- that it was NOT UNTIL 1904 that Russell stated that Armageddon was to begin in 1914, not back in the 1870s as implied in the statement given.
************************* More to be added later, God willing.
The following are notes related to some assorted points brought up on the "history", which we hope to get better organized later.
Russell never claimed to be have "authority" over the church or any any of the Bible Students groups; he claimed to be a fellow-servant of Christ. Others claimed such for him, but he refused such authority until the day he died.
For proof see, the archive regarding Russell and "Sole Channel/Authority" http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=75
Russell preached against anyone being a "follower" of Russell. See: Russellism http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=809
Making the assertion concerning followers of Russell in the context of the JW organization also leaves the impression that Russell formed such an organization. Russell was actually a non-sectarian who believed that members of the true church could be found among all the various denominations that claimed to be Christian. See Russell and Church Organization http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=17
Futhermore, it appears to be implying that Russell rejected 1874 as the date Christ returned, and that he was "then" claiming that Christ was to return in 1914; if this is the thought, it is incorrect. In 1876, two years after 1874, Russell accepted that Christ had returned in 1874, and he held to that view until he died in 1916; he never said anything about Christ as returning in 1914.
Additionally, by stating "Armageddon would begin in 1914" in the context of "Jehovah's Witnesses", it leaves the impression with the reader that Russell was expecting what the JWs preach concerning "Armageddon", that is, that virtually everyone earth except the JWs are eternally destroyed. Russell did not believe in this; indeed, this is similar to the "end of the world" expectations held by most of the "Second Adventists" which he rejecte and which preached against. Russell believed that "Armageddon" was a period of time in which the peoples of the nations would be chatised (not eternally destroyed) in preparation for dthe kingdom blessings to follow. Thus, his original acceptance of Barbour's view that Armageddon was to end in 1914 did not mean that he was expecting millions of unbelievers to be eternally destroyed in 1914, but rather that Satan would have been abyssed and the blessings of the peoples could begin. Of course, in 1904, Russell rejected that earlier view and began to realize that time of trouble was to begin, not end, in 1914, which would then delay the removal of denominationalism until sometime after 1914.
The main thing that Russell was expecting for 1914 was the beginning of the time of trouble, within which to bring about the destruction of Babylon, denominationalism, which Russell often referred to as "the churches", meaning the denominational churches. Russell expected that with the beginning of the time of trouble, it would not be long afterwards that "the church" denominatinal systems would also pass away. Indeed, God is not going to allow such denominational divisions to continue on into the Kingdom Age. Such denominatinal divisions is indeed the product of Satan, not of God. Once Satan is abyssed, the people will certainly have been freed from such denominationalism. Russell died in 1916 rejoicing in seeing that the time of trouble had begun in 1914, although he realized that he had been in error in expecting too much happen as quickly as he expected.
Rutherford took control after Russell died. Russell did not die until October of 1916. Russell himself died still holding to the belief that Christ had returned in 1874, and that the time of trouble had begun in 1914. Russell himself held no expectations regarding 1916 itself; he died with the belief that that their was still a lot of work yet to be done.
However, Rutherford never moved the date 1914 to 1916; if he would have done so, it would have needed to have been done before Russell died in October of 1916, which would not at all fit historical facts. As far as I can determine, the only one(s) who regarding 1916 to have Biblical significance was Paul S. L. Johnson and those who accepted his conclusions. Johnson used a lot of what he thought to be types and antitypal parallels to designate the year 1916, but he did not replace 1914 with 1916. Nor did Johnson point to the year 1916 before 1916 had arrived. He claimed that in 1916 the last member of the 144,000 were sealed, and that since then all who consecrated themselves were of the "youthful worthies", those Russell had referred to as "consecrating between the ages".
Rutherford, however, deceitfully took control after Russell died; he rejected Russell's provisions for the WTS and deceitfully had new by-laws passed by the shareholders who had never read what was in those new by-laws. Effectually, in a few weeks after Russell died, Rutherford had destroyed the WTS as Russell had intended for it to be, and replaced it with a new WTS that he could use to promote his "organization" dogma. Indeed, Russell rarely used the word "organization" related to the WTS, and when he did, it was simply in the sense of corporate organization, not in the sense that Rutherford and his associates began promoting that term as early as December of 1916. Rutherford's methods were very insidious however, and while the majority of those working at Bethel headquarters realized what he was doing and stopped supporting him, it took much longer for those associated with the Bible Students to realize what course Rutherford was taking. Neverthless, by 1928, the Bible Students as whole, represented by the vast majority (well over 75%) had rejected Rutherford's "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma. The Bible Students -- as a whole -- never became "Jehovah's Witnesess"; the Bible Students still exist today, aside from the JW organization.
Rutherford led his followers into accepting another gospel rather than the good news of great joy that will be for all the people that Russell preached, and that the Bible Students still preach today. Rutherford began promoting an alleged gospel that, in effect, is "bad tidings of great woe for most of the people" that they and their children may be eternally destroyed in Armageddon if they do not come to and submit to Rutherford and his organization (which he claimed to be "Jehovah's organization") for salvation. This, indeed, is a "good news" that was almost the very opposite of what Russell preached, and which the Bible Students still preach today.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

100 "Truths" About Jesus

This post is intended to give links that, in effect, constitute scriptural replies to Matt Slick's 100 (Alleged) Truths About Jesus. Matt Slick's list has been reproduced on many sites and in many forums. We do not disagree with all of Matt Slick's statements, but we do believe that he is in error regarding many things. This work is in progress, and we will adding to it, God willing, as time permits.

Did Jesus Claim to be the Supreme Being?

Matt Slick asserts that Jesus claimed to be God, and he gives John 8:24; 8:56-59 (citing Exodus 3:14) and John 10:30-33. In reality, none of the scriptures cited represent Jesus as claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of Exodus 3:14,15. The thought that Jesus was claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has to be formulated beyond what Jesus stated, and assumptions formed have to added to and read into what Jesus stated.
Regarding John 8:24; 8:56-59 and Exodus 3:14, see the following studies:
John 10:30-33
In John 10:30-33, likewise, we do not find that Jesus is saying that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but rather he declares his oneness with the only true Supreme Being who had sent him. (John 17:1,3) He prayed for this same oneness to exist between his followers, himself and the only true God who had sent him. (John 17:1,3,11,20-23) While Jesus pointed out the true reason that they sought to kill him, the lying Jews denied that the real reason.
For studies related to John 10:30-33:
The real truth is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus was sent by Jehovah, speaks for Jehovah as his unipersonal God and Father, represents Jehovah, and it was the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raised and glorified His Son. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. — Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13-26; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

Is Jesus Called God (Supreme Being)?

Matt Slick asserts that Jesus is called "God" (evidently with the meaning of "Supreme Being") in the following verses: John 1:1,14; 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8.
John 1:1
John refers to the prehuman Jesus with the Greek word THEOS in John 1:1. Most translations render THEOS as "God", with a capital letter, with the deliberate desire to make it say that Jesus "was" -- before he became flesh -- the Supreme Being. John 1:14 relates how the prehuman Logos "became flesh"; it says nothing about Jesus' being the Supreme Being; it certainly does not say that the Supreme Being added flesh to His being the Supreme Being, as many like to imagine and read into what is stated there.
Since John makes it clear that Jesus, as the Logos, was with the only true Supreme Being before the world of mankind had been made through him (John 17:1,3,5), the default reasoning is not to imagine and assume that THEOS as applied to Jesus means that Jesus "was" the Supreme Being, but, in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures, that John was using a Hebraism to denote that Jesus "was" a mighty being before he became flesh.
Regarding John 1:1, see the RL studies and other studies linked to from the RL John 1:1 Resource Page
John 1:14
Regarding John 1:14, see the RL studies related to John 1:14.
Colossians 2:9
Colossians 2:9 in the Greek refers to the plentitude of godship -- mightiness -- that the only true God (John 17:1,3) has given to Jesus in his exalted celestial, spiritual body. -- 1 Corinthians 15:27,39-41; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Peter 3:18.
Titus 2:13
In keeping with the Paul's general stance of presenting "God" as only one person, that is, the God and Father of Jesus, even many trinitarian translators have rendered this verse in a manner that makes it clear that Paul was not saying that Jesus is "our Great God".
See the RL study: The Great God
Hebrews 1:8
Quoting Psalms 45:6,7 -- If the unipersonal "God" of Hebrews 1:1 is referring to his son as ELOHIM/THEOS in Hebrews 1:8, in keeping with the Hebraic usage, it should be understood as not meaning the Supreme Being, since it is the only true Supreme Being, the Lord Jehovah, who anointed and sent Jesus. Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3; Acts 10:38.
See the RL studies: Why is Jesus Called ELOHIM and THEOS? http://jesus.rlbible.com/?p=367
The truth is that in the very, very, few instances in which one could see Jesus as being called "God", it does not follow that he is being called the only true Supreme Being. Indeed, in none of the instances often given wherein it is claimed that Jesus is being called "God" does it mean that Jesus is being referred as the only true Supreme Being, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Jesus is the Image of the Only True Supreme Being

Matt Slick states that Jesus is the image of God, and he gives Hebrews 1:3. Jesus is not being identified as the Supreme Being in Hebrews 1:1-3, but rather the one through whom the Supreme Being (God) speaks, and performs his work. This agrees with the rest of the New Testament.

Jesus Now Lives Forever

Hebrews 7:24
But he, because he lives forever, has his priesthood unchangeable. -- World English
Matt Slick refers to Hebrews 7:24 as proof that Jesus "abides" forever. We agree that Jesus, now that his God and Father has raised him from the dead (Acts 2:24; 3:13,15,26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:34,37; 17:31; Romans 4:24; 6:10; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:15; 2 Corinthians 4:14; 13:4; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 5:7; 1 Peter 1:21), he will never die again (Romans 6:9; Revelation 1:18), and thus, he lives forever. However, usually when a trinitarian references Hebrews 7:24, they often imagine that it means that Jesus was uncreated. This, of course, is not what is stated in Hebrews 7:24.

God's Creation Through Jesus

Matt Slick claims that Jesus is the Creator of "all things", evidently meaning that Jesus is the Supreme Being who is the source of all creation in the universe. He presents John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-17 as proof. In reality, both scriptures present Jesus, not as the source of the creation being spoken of, but as the instrument that God uses in the creation. Colossians 1:15 presents Jesus, not as being the only true Supreme Being, but rather as being the "image" of the only true Supreme Being, which harmonizes with Jesus' words of John 17:1,3. In Colossians 1:15, Paul speaks of "God" as being only one person, which harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Jesus is Before All

John1:1-3
Slick refers to John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:17 and claims that Jesus is before all things. The word "things" is not inherent in the Greek of either John 1:3 or Colossians 1:16,17; the Greek word often transliterated as "pas" -- translated as "all" or "all things" in these verses -- rarely means all things in the entire universe, and it is most often limited by context or common evidence. The context of John 1:3 is the beginning of the world of mankind into which the Logos came. (John 1:10) This is the same word spoken of in Romans 5:12 and the same "all creation" spoken of Romans 8:22.
Colossians 1:17
The context of Colossians 1:17 is related to all living creatures, but would exclude the firstborn creature himself. (Colossians 1:15) "Pas", as used here, refers to more than just the world of mankind, but includes all the heavenly spirit creatures.
The truth: Jesus is indeed created before all the living creation that was made through him, giving him the preeminence above all creatures.

See: The World Made Through Jesus God's Creations Through Jesus Gentitive and "For"

Jesus is Eternal

Matt Slick claims that Jesus is eternal and he gives John 1:1,14; 8:58; and Micah 5:1,2 as proof. We first wish to say that we do believe that Jesus, now that will never die again, is scripturally eternal. However, this is not what most trinitarians mean when they say "eternal"; they usually give their meaning as something like uncreated, having no beginning or end, outside of time, etc. None of these meanings however, are inherent in the Hebrew and Greek words that are usually translated "everlasting", "eternal", etc.
John 1:1,14
We find nothing in John 1:1,14 that says that Jesus has always been, or that he had eternal past, although that is what many often read into what is stated. It is assumed, and translators often word the matter to make it seem to confirm that assumption, that the "all" of John 1:3 refers to the entire created universe, and it is further often assumed that time is part the "all" that was made through the Logos, and therefore that Jesus was existing before time was created, as many often put it, or that he was existing outside of time. In reality, these thoughts have to imagined and assumed beyond what is wrriten, for no such thought is presented anywhere in the Bible, nor is there anything in John 1:1,14 that gives any thought that Jesus was not created before the beginning of the world of mankind. -- John 1:10.
John 8:58
Again, in John 8:58 we do not find anything to the effect that Jesus has always existed, although that is what many read into what Jesus said. Jesus was expressing his being before Abraham was; this does not mean he was claiming to have always existed.
See our studies:
Micah 5:1,2
Many translations here make it appear that Jesus was "from everlasting" or "from eternity", which is interpreted to mean that Jesus has always existed, and thus was uncreated. However, this is only verse we have found in the entire Bible where anyone translates the Hebrew phrase being used as meaning everlasting or eternity. Many translations do not have the word "everlasting" or "eternal" in Micah 5:2. Even in Micah 7:14, where we find the same phrase, we do not know of any translation that renders the phrase as from of old, from everlasting. In Deuteronomy 32:7, also, the phrase is rendered in the KJV as "days of old"; the same expression is also used in Isaiah 63:9,11; Amos 9:11 and Malachi 3:4. We do not know of any translation that renders the phrase in those verses as having any meaning of eternity past. Thus, to the only reason to render as meaning forever in Micah 5:2 would be to due to the misconception that Jesus was uncreated. As a result, any usage of the scripture to attempt to prove that Jesus is uncreated becomes circular reasoning, in effect, saying, "Because we believe Jesus is uncreated, we render Micah 5:2 to express Jesus' being uncreated, and because of we have done this, then Micah 5:2 proves that Jesus is uncreated. See also Micah 5:7, wherein we find that Jehovah is presented as being Jesus' God.

Jesus Should Be Honored the Same as the Father

John 5:23
“That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.”
This is a truth; however, we are sure that Matt Slick would like for people to imagine, assume, and read into Jesus' words that the there is something in his statement that would mean that Jesus was claiming to be God, or to be equal to God. However, since Jesus identified his God and Father as being the only true God, and excludes himself from being that only true God by claiming the only true God had sent him, the honor due to Jesus is that of being God's representative, who speaks and acts on behalf of the only true God whom he represents. He is equal to his God only in that he faithfully represents and does the work on behalf of the only true God who sent him; this does not make Jesus into being the only true God. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13-26; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.
See our study: Jesus Received Worship

Jesus is Prayed To

Matt Slick states that Jesus is prayed to, and he provides the following scriptures: Acts 7:55-60; 1 Corinthians 1:2 with Psalm 116:4; John 14:14. Usually, the thought behind presenting these scriptures is to claim that Jesus is Jehovah, and then to further imagine and assume that Jesus is a person of Jehovah, etc. In reality, there is nothing in the scriptures that should lead one to think that Jesus is Jehovah. We have discussed all these scriptures and more in our study: Jesus as the Object of Prayer

Jesus is Worshiped

The thought is often given that since Jesus is worshiped, then Jesus is must be God, or else those who are spoken of as worshiping Jesus were committing idolatry. The problem is that the Hebrews used the same word for they used for worship for any homage given to anyone, whether the Almighty or men. There is no indication in any of the scriptures in which Jesus is worshiped, or given homage, that such worship/homage was being given with the thought that Jesus is the Almighty Jehovah. For scriptural proof, see our studies related to: The Worship of Jesus.

Omnipresent Jesus is With Us

The claim is made that Jesus is omnipresent, which means that he would be infinitely present absolutely everywhere all the time. The following scriptures are given as alleged proof: Matthew 18:20; 28:20. The scriptures given certainly show that the only true God who sent Jesus has given to Jesus the ability to be present in more than one place. (Matthew 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 5:22-27; 1 Corinthians 15:27) As the one appointed by God as “Lord” over the church (Acts 2:36; 10:42; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Hebrews 1:9; 3:2), Jesus would of necessity need to be present in some way with his followers.

Jesus' Presence With Us

The claim is made that Jesus is omnipresent, meaning that he is present everywhere in the universe at the same time. This is one of the trinitarian alleged attributes that only can belong to the Supreme Being, and thus, by such reasoning is often then claimed that since Jesus has this attribute, he must be the Supreme Being. The following scriptures are given to support the claim: Matthew 18:20; 28:20. Obviously, there is nothing in either Matthew 18:20 nor in Matthew 28:20 that says that Jesus present everywhere at same time in the whole universe, thus, such a thought has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into what Jesus actually did say. See our studies related to this at: Matthew 18:20; 28:20 – Jesus’ Presence With Us
**********God willing, more to follow...

Who Is Jesus? (Reply to Will Daniels)

I will be here addressing the list of Will Daniels found in his book, "Understanding the Trinity". This list has been floating around on various blogs and forums on the internet, so I decided to address the list here for reference. God's Holy Name is supplied as "Jehovah" as appropriate places regardless of which translation is being quoted. -- Ronald R. Day, Senior.
It is claimed:
Genesis 1:1 (God is the Creator) - John 1:3-10 (Jesus is the Creator)
In Genesis 1:1, we have only one who is being presented as being the Creator, and that is the unipersonal ELOHIM of Genesis 1:2, who is the God and Father of Jesus. For our trinitarian neighbors they should note that ELOHIM in the expression translated as "spirit of God" (Genesis 1:2) is referring to only one person, not to more than one person; there is no reason to think that ELOHIM in Genesis 1:1 is not the same unipersonal ELOHIM of Genesis 1:2. For our oneness neighbors, one should ponder if ELOHIM is the spirit that is being spoken of, or if the spirit belongs to ELOHIM.  ELOHIM of Genesis 1:1 speaks to someone else who is not Himself in Genesis 1:26. John 1:1-10 shows who this was that ELOHIM was speaking, for it shows that Father, the only true God of John 17:1,3, created the world of mankind through His Logos. The "world" (kosmos, Strong's #2889) that God made through the Logos is that spoken of in John 1:9,10,29; 3:17; 16:28; 17:5; Romans 1:20; 5:12,13; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 3:19; 2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 2:2, and many other places throughout the New Testament. It is not there speaking of the spirit sons of God, for those sons were already in existence at the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, as can be seen by Job 38:4-7.

Thus, in John 1:3,10, we do not find anywhere in these verses that Jesus is the Creator spoken of in Genesis 1:1, but we have the Logos presented as being the one though whom ELOHIM of Genesis 1:1 made the world [kosmos] of mankind, the world into which the Logos came, the same world [kosmos] that became corrupted through the sin of one man. (Romans 5:12-19; 8:20-22) The world being spoken in John 1:3,10 does not include the angels, for Job 38:4-6 lets us know that the angels were already in existence at the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.

See my studies related to Jesus and Creation
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/jesus-and-creation.html

Genesis 17:1 (The Almighty is God) - Rev. 1:8 (Jesus is the Almighty)
It is not Jesus who is speaking in Revelation 1:8, but rather the Almighty in Revelation 1:8 is the same one who is stated be "God" in Revelation 1:1, the one who is, was and is to come of Revealtion 1:4 and who is distinguished from Jesus Christ of Revelation 1:5. Revelation 1:1 harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:6; the God and Father of Jesus is the source; Jesus is the instrument. Being that only the God and Father of Jesus is the source of all might, only the God and Father of Jesus is the Almighty. Jesus is never presented in the Bible as being the Almighty.

Isa, 44:6(The first and last is God) - Rev. 1:8, 22:13(Jesus is first and last)
It is Jehovah, the God of Jesus, who is refers to Himself to as Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, in Revelation 22:13. In Revelation 1:8, the God of Jesus is speaking, not Jesus. It is possible that Revelation 1:8 was meant to be Revelation 2:8. "First and last" in Revelation 2:8 cannot be referring to Jesus as being the Supreme Being, not unless one believes that the Supreme Being "was dead." .

See my studies related to "Alpha and Omega"
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/alpha-and-omega.html


Exodus 3:14 (The “I am” is God) – John 8:58 (Jesus is the “I am”)
No where in John 8:58 does Jesus say that his name is EHJEH, or that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of Exodus 3:14,15, wherein the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob spoke to His prophet Moses. He who spoke to Moses is the Father of Jesus, as can be seen from Hebrews 1:1,2. However, the method that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob may have used to speak to Moses in Exodus 3:14,15, could have been by means of one of His angels, Peter identifies this God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not as being Jesus, but rather as having raised up Jesus as the prophet like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26) Nevertheless, Hebrews 1:1,2 lets us know that He who spoke to His prophet Moses was not Jesus, but rather the Father of Jesus.

In John 8:58, Jesus is speaking of his existence before Abraham. Any idea that he was claiming that his name is EHJEH of Exodus 3:14 has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what Jesus said.

See some of my studies related to John 8:58:
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/scriptures-examined.html#john8-58


===============
In converting this from the old site, much of the formatting was lost, and of course, many of the links no longer work. I have edited the above, but I am endeavoring to get to the rest as God permits. - last update: 6/23/2017
===============


It is being claimed:

Deut. 10:17(The Lord of Lords is God) – Rev. 19:16 (Jesus is Lord of Lords)

We find nothing at all in Deuteronomy 10:17 as compared with Revelation 19:16 that says that Jesus is Jehovah. Anyone who is Lord over others who are also lords can be referred to as "Lord of lords." Jesus is certainly Lord over others who are also lords. So is his God; unlike Jesus, however, God needs no one to make him Lord over others who are Lords. (Psalm 45:7; Acts 2:36: Hebrews 1:9) The fact that Jesus was made such a Lord does not mean that we need to call upon the spirit of human imagination so as to assume and add to the scriptures that Jesus is Jehovah.
See my studies:
Lord of Lords and King of Kings
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=663
The Misuse of Similarities
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=1298

It is being claimed:

Psalms 18:31 (The Rock is God) – I Corinthians 10:4 (Jesus is the Rock)
1 Corinthians 10:4
kai pantes to auto pneumatikon epion poma
AND ALL (ONES) THE VERY SPIRITUAL THEY DRANK DRINK,
2532 3956 3588 0846_9 4152 4095 4188
0846_98
epinon gar ek pneumatikees akolouthousees
THEY WERE DRINKING FOR OUT OF SPIRITUAL FOLLOWING
4095 1063 1537 4152 0190
petras hee petra de een ho christos
ROCK MASS, THE ROCK MASS BUT WAS THE CHRIST;
4073 3588 4073 1161 1511_3 3588 5547

Now all these things happened to them by way of example (Strong’s #5179, type, figure*), and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come. — 1 Cornthians 10:11.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/tupos.html

Again, we find nothing at all that says that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; again we find that one has to imagine beyond what is written in order to see such in what is actually written.

1 Corinthians 10:4 does not say “Jesus is the Rock”, but rather “the rock was Christ.” That rock that “was” IS not Jehovah God of Psalm 18:31, but rather it is the rock that Moses struck, which provided water for the children of Israel. That rock that Moses struck was the Anointed One, because it was a type, a figure, a representation of the coming Anointed One of Jehovah. Jesus used a present tense form of the same verb in Matthew 11:14, saying, “If you are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come.” In saying “this is Elijah”, he was not saying that John the Baptist was actually Elijah, but rather that Elijah was a type, a figure, of John the Baptist, in that they both did a similar work. Likewise, the Rock that provided water for the children of Israel is a type of the Christ, the Anointed One, who provides living water (from his God). — John 4:10,13; 7:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

See my study:
That Rock Was Christ
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=1187

It is being claimed:

Psalms 146:10 (God shall reign forever)- Luke 1:33 (Jesus will reign forever)
Yes, the God and Father of Jesus will indeed reign forever by means of His Son; this does not mean that His Son is Himself, or that His Son is a person of Himself (trinitarian).

All Things Through, By Means of, Jesus

The unipersonal Most High Jehovah (Luke 1:32,35), having sent His Messiah, does all things through, by means of, Jesus, his son, the one whom He has ordained, appointed and anointed, and our salvation is from the God of Jesus, through the son of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all to the glorification of the God and Father of Jesus. — Psalm 2:6; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 11:27; 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 1:17; 3:35; 13:3; 16:15; Acts 4:27; Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:27; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Ephesians 1:3,17,20-22; Philippians 2:11; Colossians 1:3,13,20; Hebrews 1:1,2; 1 Peter 4:11.

The God and Father of Jesus comes to judge through — by means of — His son. — Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Luke 1:32,35; John 5:22,23; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob speaks and performs His works through His son. — Deuteronomy 18:18,19; John 3:34; 5:19; 6:38; 7:16,28,29; 8:28,38,40; 12:29; 14:10; 17:8; Acts 3:13-26; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:1,2.

Nothing in this means that the God and Father of Jesus is Jesus.

It is claimed:

Isaiah 40:11 (The Shepherd is God) – John 10:16 (Jesus is the Shepherd)
No one appoints Jehovah God as shepherd, and no one gives the sheep to Jehovah. Jehovah foretold, however, that he would “set up one shepherd” over his sheep. (Ezekiel 34:23) Jesus claimed to be that one genuine shepherd, as he claimed that his God and Father had given the sheep to him. — John 10:11,14,16,29.

There is nothing in any of this that means that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

See:
The One Shepherd
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=5357

It is claimed:

Isaiah 41:14 (The Redeemer is God) – Luke 1:68 (Jesus is the Redeemer)
Don’t be afraid, you worm Jacob, and you men of Israel; I will help you, says Jehovah, and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel. — Isaiah 41:14.

Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, For he has visited and worked redemption for his people; — Luke 1:68

Luke 1:68 is not speaking of Jesus, but rather Jehovah. The word “visit”, especially when in reference to Jehovah, is used in the sense of giving attention to. Jehovah often visited — gave his attention — his people for many different reasons in the Old Testament, and often He used someone as an instrument of his purpose for visiting His people. Likewise, Jehovah, in sending His son, Jesus, was visiting — giving attention to — his people for the purpose of redemption.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=Jehovah+visit&c=&t=asv&ps=100&s=Bibles
http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=Jehovah+visited&c=&t=asv&ps=100&s=Bibles

See my study:
God Visited His People
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=2218



It is claimed:

Isaiah 43:10 (God said, “I am he”) – John 8:24 (Jesus said, “I am he”)>>
Again, one has to imagine and assume that since Jehovah said something in Hebrew in Isaiah 43:10 as related to Himself, and that since Jesus said something similar in John 8:24 (although he was speaking of something entirely different), that this means that Jesus is Jehovah of Isaiah 43:10.

In Isaiah 43:10, the Hebrew phrase is usually transliterated as “ANI HU”, which literally means “I – he”. The Hebrew does not have a passive copulative “to be”, but it is understood, and is thus supplied by translators with forms of the English “to be”; in the case of Isaiah 43:10, it becomes, “I am he”. In the LXX, the translators provided the koine Greek form often transliterated as EIMI, making it EGO EIMI, which literally means “I am”, and the word “he” is left to be understood in the Koine Greek as being the object. It is from this that many trinitarians (and some others) make a connection between EGO EIMI of the LXX and with several of places where Jesus uses the Greek form EGO EIMI, when speaking of himself. In Isaiah 43:10, it is obvious that Jehovah was claiming to be Jehovah, the God of Israel, before whom none of the gods of heathen existed, and none of these idols will exist after him (since Jehovah will never cease to exist, but these idols gods will cease to exist).

It is often claimed that this phrase is never used by anyone but Jehovah. It is a phrase that would hardly ever be used by anyone, and while it may be true that the exact phrase is not used by anyone else as recorded in the Hebrew Old Testament, we find that David did use to the two words of himself as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:17, although the two words are separated by several words in between. Likewise, with the Greek expression, EGO EIMI; as used without an object, it would not often be used by anyone in the Bible. In John 9:9, we find that a blind man used it of himself, not with any thought that anyone would think that he was claiming to be Jehovah God, but rather that he was simply expressing that he was the one who had been healed by Jesus.

See also:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=253#john8-24

It is claimed:

Isaiah 43:10,11 (God is the Saviour) – Luke 2:11 (Jesus is the Saviour)
Isaiah 45:21 (The One Saviour is God) – Acts 4:12 (Jesus is the One Saviour)
Isaiah 43:10,11(God is the only Saviour)- Titus 1:4(Jesus is the only Saviour)
Isaiah 43:10,11; 45:21 speaks of Jehovah as being the savior of Israel, which he did when he brought Israel out of Egypt. (Exodus 3:8; 6:6-8; 12:51; Deuteronomy 32:12; Isaiah 43:1,3; 45:11) At the same time, we read that it was Moses who brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. (Exodus 3:10; Acts 7:36,40) Does this mean that Moses is Jehovah? No, but rather, the Psalmist says to Jehovah: “You led your people like a flock, By the hand of Moses and Aaron.”. (Psalm 77:20) Jehovah acted through His agent, Moses. Additionally, we read that when Israel came to later be in need of deliverance. Jehovah himself did not come an personally deliver them, but He sent saviors to deliver them. (Nehemiah 9:27) Judges 2:16 tells us: “Jehovah raised up judges, who saved [yasha`] them out of the hand of those who despoiled them.” And Nehemiah 9:27: “Therefore you delivered them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried to you, you heard from heaven; and according to your manifold mercies you gave them saviors [Hebrew, Yasha`] who saved [Hebrew, Yasha`] them out of the hand of their adversaries.” Some of the saviors sent by Jehovah included: Othniel – Judges 3:9; Gideon – Judges 6:13,14; 8:22; Gideon’s 700: Judges 7:7; Samson – Judges 13:5; David – 2 Samuel 3:18. Jehovah sent these saviors who acted in his name and with his power and authority. Additionally, in the kingdom age, we read that ” And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be Jehovah’s.” (Obadiah 1:21) Such saviors were/will not be “besides (apart from)” (Isaiah 43:11) Jehovah, since they were sent by Jehovah, and thus Jehovah was working through, by means of, these servants whom he sent.

The scriptures abound with cases where Jehovah uses various servants but is given the credit for their actions, since He was the directing force. — Exodus 3:10,12; 12:17; 18:10; Numbers 16:28; Judges 2:6,18; 3:9,10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:24,25; 14:6,19; 15:14,18; 16:20,28-30, 2 Kings 4:27; Isaiah 43:11, 45:1-6; etc.

Likewise, we read concerning Jesus, “God has sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:9) “God … sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1 John 4:10) “God was, by means of Christ. reconciling the world to himself.” (2 Corithians 5:19) This agrees with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:6, that all is of God, through Jesus.

There is nothing in any of these scriptures, however, that say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; such an assumption, if applied consistently in other scriptures, would mean that all those whom Jehovah sent as saviors must also be Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

See:
No Savior Besides Jehovah
http://notrinity.blogspot.com/2011/07/yah-savior.html

It is claimed:

Isaiah 43:15 (The Holy One is God) – Acts 3:14 (Jesus is the Holy One)
Acts 3:14 – But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you.

Contrary to what some have imagined and assumed, Acts 3:14 DOES NOT proclaim Jesus as the Holy One of Israel, but rather that he is the Holy and Righteous One. He was sanctified, made holy, by his God, and sent into the world of mankind. (John 10:36) His God gave him a body of flesh that was uncontaminated with the taint of sin through Adam. (Matthew 1:20; Romans 5:12-19; Hebrews 2:9; 10:5) Thus, Jesus, in becoming flesh, was upright — straight, righteous — as was Adam before Adam sinned. (Ecclesiastes 7:29) Unlike Adam, Jesus never fell short of the glory of God due to sin. (Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 3:5) Thus, Jesus was indeed the one made Holy by his God, and he was indeed “the righteous one” — the only man in history who remained sinless (obedient to God) all of his life even until he died. — Philippians 2:8.

Again, what we find is that one has to call upon the spirit of human imagination so as to read into Acts 3:14 something that is does not say, for it certainly does not say that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And if Peter was indeed making Jesus out to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then it was not the man Jesus who was killed, but it was God Almighty Himself who was killed (Acts 3:15). In reality, Acts 3:13 and Acts 3:15 distinguishes the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from Jesus, showing the Jesus was the foretold prophet whom the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was to raise up, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also raised Jesus from the dead. — Deuteronomy 18:15-20.

See my study:
Is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=2827

It is claimed:

Isaiah 43:15(God is King of Israel) – Matt. 27:37(Jesus is King of Israel)
Isa. 44:6 (The King of Israel is God) – John 1:49 (Jesus is King of Israel)
There is again nothing in the title “King of Israel”, that designates Jesus as being Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One has to imagine and assume that this title is being applied both to Jehovah and to Jehovah’s anointed in some way so as to mean that Jehovah’s anointed is Jehovah. To get “trinity” into this, one then has to further imagine and add to the scripture that this means that Jesus is a person of Jehovah, etc.

Actually, it is Jehovah who makes Jesus to rule on David’s throne; David also, by the way, was also spoken of in the Bible as “king of Israel” and “king over Israel.” — 2 Samuel 5:3,17; 6:2; 1 Chronicles 14:2,8; 2 Chronicles 29:27; 30:26; 35:4; Ezra 3:10; Proverbs 1:1.

David, nonetheless, acknowledged his God as also King. — Psalm 145:1.

Additionally, there are many who have been designated “king of Israel”.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=%22king+of+israel%22&c=&t=web&ps=100&s=Bibles

Jehovah, however, is King of Israel due to His being the former of Israel (Isaiah 43:1; 44:2), and due to the covenant that was made with Israel. — Exodus 34:27.

It is claimed:

Isa. 45:23(Every knee must bow-God) – Phil. 2:10-11(Every knee must bow-Jesus)>.
By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. — Isaiah 45:23.

In Isaiah 45:23, it is foretold that every knee must bow to Jehovah.

Philippians 2:10-11:

That at the name of Jesus every knee would bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father.

In Philippians 2:10,11, we do not find it stated that the people actually bow to Jesus, but that they bow “at the name of Jesus” to the glory of God, the Father — the only true God (John 17:5). “God” is being idenified as one person or individual, and Jesus is distinguished from that One who is identified as being “God”. This agrees with Jesus’ statement in John 17:1,3, where Jesus refers to his God and Father as the “only true God”. It also agrees with Paul’s statement that there is to the believers in Christ only one God, who is the Father, of whom is “the all”. (1 Corinthians 8:6) The only true God does “all” through the one whom He has made “lord”, and thus, all must confess Jesus as being the “lord” anointed by Jehovah. — Isaiah 61:1; Ezekiel 37:24,25; Micah 5:2-4; Matthew 28:19; John 3:35; 5:22-29; Acts 2:33,36; 4:11; 5:31; 10:42; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Philippians 2:9.

See my study:
The Unipersonal God Exalted Jesus
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=3493

It is claimed:

Jeremiah 31:32 (God, the One Husband) – II Cor. 11:2 (Jesus-The One Husband)
Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah.

This is speaking of Jehovah as being figuratively a husband to the children of Israel under the old Law Covenant.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you [as] a pure virgin to Christ.

It is evidently being imagined and assumed that no one can be accounted as being a figurative husband except Jehovah? I know of no scripture that says such.

In reality, 2 Corinthians 11:2 does not speak of Jehovah as being a husband to Israel under the Law Covenant, but Paul is speaking of Jesus with whom Jehovah has made a covenant for Kingdom through Abraham. (Genesis 22:18; Luke 22:29; Galatians 3:26) Jesus, in turn, offers that covenant to his followers (Luke 22:29; Galatians 3:26-29), by which Jesus, not Jehovah, becomes figuratively a husband to those who become his bride (Revelation 21:9) through the Abrahamic covenant, which was made with Abraham 430 years before the Law Covenant. — Galatians 3:17,18.

There is nothing in any of this that means that Jesus is Jehovah.

See my study:
New Covenant Vs. Covenant for a Kingdom
http://rl-bibleinfo.com/?p=350

It is claimed:

Zechariah 12:10 (They pierced me – God)- John 19:34 (They pierced Jesus)
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. — Zechariah 12:10, Revised Standard Version.

And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. — Zechariah 12:10, New Revised Standard.

I will fill the descendants of David and the other people of Jerusalem with the spirit of mercy and the spirit of prayer. They will look at the one whom they stabbed to death, and they will mourn for him like those who mourn for an only child. They will mourn bitterly, like those who have lost their first-born son. — Zechariah 12:10, Good News Translation.

John 19:37
Again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they pierced.” — World English.

John quotes Zechariah 12:10, not as saying that “they will look on me” as many translations rendered Zecharian 12:10, but as “they will on him”. The Jewish Talmud* quotes Zechariah 12:10 as saying “and they shall look upon whom they have pierced, and mourn.”
============
*T. Bab. Succah, fol. 52. 1, as quoted by John Gill in his comments on Zechariah 12:10.

At any rate, one has to assume that it was Jehovah’s intentions by His words in Zechariah 12:10 to claim that He would His son; and then, as far as trinitarians are concerned, then one has to be further imaigine and assume that this means that Jehovah was speaking of Himself as a person of an alleged triune God, etc. In view of the fact that the Bible is fully at harmony with itself without assuming such, we actually have no reason to imagine that Zechariah 12:10 was meant to imply that Jesus is Jehovah.

See my study:
The One Pierced
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=1383

It is claimed:

Zechariah 14:4-5 (God is coming) – Matthew 25:31 (Jesus is coming)
“Thus saith Jehovah, Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” “And I will make the place [footstool] of my feet glorious.” “And his [Jehovah’s] feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives.” Isa. 60:13; 66:1; Zech. 14:4; Matt. 5:35; Acts 7:49

Zechariah 14:3 Then Jehovah will go out and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Zechariah 14:4 His feet will stand in that day on the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in two, from east to west, making a very great valley. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Zechariah 14:5 You shall flee by the valley of my mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azel; yes, you shall flee, just like you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Jehovah my God will come, and all the holy ones with you. — World English.

This speaks, not only of Jehovah as coming, but also the holy ones, the saints, who will come.

Zechariah 14:4 tell us of a time when Jehovah will place his feet on the Mount of Olives. (verse 3) It is speaking figuratively. It is certainly not speaking of the flesh of Jesus coming to standing on the Mount of Olives, for Jesus is no longer flesh, for he gave his flesh in sacrifice to his God for our sins. (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18) Verse three speaks of Jehovah as coming to fight as he did the days of old. However, as other prophecies show, Jehovah will glorify the place of his feet, that is, the planet earth with man in charge, as it was His original purpose, but which has not yet been fulfilled due to Adam’s sin. — Genesis 1:26,27; Psalm 8:4-8; Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:5-7.

Matthew 25:31 – But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.

Of course, the Son of the Man David will come and sit down on the throne of glory when he comes to judge the world. Jehovah comes to judge through the one whom He has ordained. — Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Luke 1:32,35; John 5:22,23; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5.

Jehovah the Most High (Luke 1:32,35), having sent His Messiah, does all things through, by means of, Jesus, his son, the one whom He has ordained, appointed and anointed, and our salvation is from the unipersonal God, through the son of the unipersonal God, all to the glorification of the unipersonal God. — Psalm 2:6; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 11:27; 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 1:17; 3:35; 13:3; 16:15; Acts 4:27; Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:27; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Ephesians 1:3,17,20-22; Philippians 2:11; Colossians 1:3,13,20; Hebrews 1:1,2; 1 Peter 4:11.

While I may not agree with some of the details, one might study the following:
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/volumes/D14.asp

See also:
Mankind’s Course to the Day of Judgment
http://life.rlbible.com/?p=152

It is claimed:

Malachi 1:6 (The One Master is God) – Matthew 23:8 (Jesus is the One Master)
A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My fear? says Jehovah of Hosts to you, O priestswho despise My name. But you say, In what havewe despised Your name? — Malachi 1:6, Green’s Literal.

But don’t you be called ‘Rabbi,’ for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. — Matthew 23:8, World English.

The Hebrew word translated as “master’ in Malachi 1:6 is a form of the word often transliterated as adon (Strong’s Hebrew #410).
http://classic.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0113

The Greek word that corresponds to this is often transliterated as “KURIOS” (Strong’s Greek #2962)

No form of KURIOS appears in Matthew 23:8.

Nevertheless, Jesus is the “one lord” that the Lord Jehovah has anointed and made lord over the church, as well as the dead and living. (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6) This does not mean that the Lord Jehovah made Jesus to be the Lord Jehovah. Jesus is not the Lord Jehovah who made Jesus to be one Lord, nor is the Lord Jehovah the Lord whom the Lord Jehovah has made to be “Lord”.

See my studies related to “One God, One Lord”:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?cat=23

It is being claimed:

Malachi 2:10 (God is the Father) – John 14:5-9,Isaiah 9:6, (Jesus is the Father)
In Malachi 2:20; John 14:5-9 and Isaiah 9:6, it is the God and Father of Jesus (Acts 3:13-26; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; Hebrews 1:1,2) is designated as being the Father. Jesus does not claim to be the Father at any time or any place, although, in a sense, he does become father to the human race in the regeneration of the human race. This, however, does not mean that he becomes his God and Father.

Studies related to Isaiah 9:6:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=5270

Rather than showing the Jesus is the Father, John 14:6 shows that Jesus is the way to the Father. One can only be reconciled to the Father by means of Jesus if one recognizes the works of the only true God in Jesus. The Jewish leaders “saw” Jesus’ flesh, but they did not “see” the Father in him, for they did not believe that Jesus came from God.

See my study:
Seeing the Father in Jesus
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=595

It is being claimed:

You should know the truth about ONE GOD!!!
The truth, as revealed in the Bible, is that the “one God” — the one Supreme Being — is identified, not as Jesus, but rather as the God and Father of Jesus. — 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 1:3; 4:16; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; 1 Peter 1:3.

See:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?s=%22one+god%22

It is being claimed:

GOD was manifest(not God the son) in the flesh 1Tim.3:16…

This highly depends on later manuscripts that were altered to read “God”. Nevertheless, the topic of 1 Timothy 3:16 is the mystery of godliness, of the Christian’s piety toward God, which is related to the rest of the sentence following “mystery of godliness”. There is definitely nothing there that says that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

See:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?tag=1-timothy-316

It is being claimed:

You should know the truth of ONE GOD 2Tes.1:8.
2 Thessalonians 1:8
giving vengeance to those who don’t know God, and to those who don’t obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus,

Nothing here says that Jesus is the “one God” of believers; in fact, it distinguishes “God” from “our Lord Jesus”.

See:
http://reslight.net/?p=122

Colossians 2:8-11 KJV

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:>>

Colossians 2:8
blepete mee tis humas estai ho
BE YOU LOOKING AT NOT SOMEONE YOU WILL BE THE (ONE)
0991 3361 5100 4771_7 1511_4 3588
sulagwgwn dia tees philosophias kai kenees
LEADING AS BOOTY THROUGH THE PHILOSOPHY AND EMPTY
4812 1223 3588 5385 2532 2756
apatees kata teen paradosin twn anthrwpwn
SEDUCTION ACCORDING TO THE TRADITION OF THE MEN,
0539 2596 3588 3862 3588 0444
kata ta stoicheia tou kosmou kai ou
ACCORDING TO THE ELEMENTARY THINGS OF THE WORLD AND NOT
2596 3588 4747 3588 2889 2532 3756
kata christon
ACCORDING TO CHRIST;
2596 5547
Colossians 2:9
hoti en autw katoikei pan to pleerwma tees
BECAUSE IN HIM IS DWELLING DOWN ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE
3754 1722 0846_5 2730 3956 3588 4138 3588
theoteetos swmatikws
GODSHIP BODILY,
2320 4985
Colossians 2:10
kai este en autw pepleerwmenoi hos estin hee
AND YOU ARE IN HIM (ONES) HAVING BEEN FILLED, WHO IS THE
2532 1510_4 1722 0846_5 4137 3739 1510_2 3588
kephalee pasees archees kai exousias
HEAD OF ALL GOVERNMENT AND OF AUTHORITY,
2776 3956 0746 2532 1849 — Westcott & Hort Interlinear

I assume that these verses are presented as being proof that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The word transliterated above as “pleerwma” means plenitude, full amount, abudance, as related to what is being spoken of.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pleroma.html

The word transliterated above as theoteetos is an abstract form theos, which therefore refers to the quality of deity, that is, based on Hebraic usage, mightiness.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/theotes.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/theos.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/el.html

See also:
The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=19

The word bodily does not refer this fleshly body, for he was put to death in flesh, but made alive in the spirit. He now has a spiritual body, a body of “terrestrial”, not terrestrial glory. — 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; 1 Peter 3:18.

Conclusion: Jesus now has the plentitude of mightiness in his present body that is needed to be “the head of all principality and power.” (Colossians 2:10) This headship is that which has been given to him by the only true Supreme Being, all of which excludes being the Supreme Being. — Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27.

See my study:
The Fullness of Deity
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=369

Matthew 22:32 and John 8:58 are presented as proof that Jesus claimed to be God.

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. — Matthew 22:32, King James Version

It is possible that it is thought that by presenting this that it is meant to leave the impression that Jesus was speaking of himself, saying that he is the God of Abraham, etc. If this is the thought, no, Jesus was not in that verse claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Let us place the verse in the context of what Jesus had just stated:

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. — King James Version.

Jesus is not here proclaiming himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but he quotes what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob said, as recorded at Exodus 3:6.

John 8:58 KJV
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Here Jesus expresses his existence before Abraham; he was not claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus had just declared that he had come forth from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (John 8:42), in agreement with his words stated at John 17:1,3, where he says that his Father is the only true Supreme Being. It also agrees with Peter’s words in Acts 3:13-26.

See my studies related to EGO EIMI, John 8:58, etc.
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=5085

The claim is made that Jesus thought he was God; in reality, it is man that claims that Jesus is the God of the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that Jesus ever thought that he was or is the God of the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Since the scriptures always present Jesus as being sent by, speaking the words for, acting on behalf of, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), the default reasoning is that Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. — Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13-26; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

See my study:
Is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=2827