Emusan:


The Son is a TITLE giving to the ETERNAL WORD of God who became part of the Creation.

ETERNAL LIFE/WORD OF GOD is almighty nor created.

No! He was ETERNAL LIFE/WORD OF GOD.

Title or not.
Why is the Title Son given ? It indicate a created being. That's why such a Title was never applied to the Father.

Sand2022:


You did say that Son has the idea of beginning. This is the point I am discussing, remember? Let's keep to that.

That your position is what is misleading. Father also do apply to people who have beginning just as the word Son. Adam is a Father, Abraham is a Father. Do they not have beginning?

Jesus fatherhood is futuristic. For Christ, what he will be called is what he is. Let's not derail. Fatherhood is like a title. There is no place in the bible that proofs that if one bears the title Father, he doesn't have a beginning. That is the point you're bringing up concerning the Son. This is what I am disproving.

The bible clearly says that apart from Christ, not even ONE thing was created. John 1:3. The only option available is that Christ created himself if we are to insist on him being created. If that statement is illogical, then Christ was not created. Simple.

You know what's interesting?
99% of those whom Father was applied to in the Bible were once a Son . The Son indicated the beginning of their existence

Can you show me where God the Father was once a Son like Jesus and others refered as Father ? None.

He was never a Son to a Father. Uncreated

Jesus was a Son to a Father , because he was created.

Emusan:


In your own logic

only The Father KNOWS makes the Father to be a PERSON

But Holy spirit KNOWS the very mind of God shows Holy spirit isn't a PERSON.

If Jesus didn't know, that automatically means it's not a person..

Can you imagine...

Matt 24:36 mention Jesus and every person that existed in the universe, where is holy spirit in that verse ? This is why not knowing automatically means it's not a Person.

Only one person knows , and that's the Father

Every other person that exist doesn't know.

So it's either , holy spirit - another person, knows and Jesus lied

Or holy spirit isn't even a person to begin with hence the total lack of mention

Janosky:


" Jesus is First born of every creature " NOT first born of the uncreated.
Adam is in whose image?
Jesus is in whose image?
Trinity nah scam.


Emusan,in your family is your POSITION/RANK higher than the first born?

What is the POSITION/RANK of the first born of God?

Oga,Continue to deceive yourself.
What a dunce!

For a first born to exist, there is going to be a last born. Either way, it shows the true meaning of the word.

MaxInDHouse:


FIRSTBORN in any ENGLISH dictionary of your choice.

Please we need it now!

The Interesting aspect is the word " First born" was never applied to the Father. Good riddance, the word " BORN " is for created beings, either last born or first born.

Emusan:


God the Son isn't a Position!

O ma se oooo

The Title God the Son is to show Jesus was FULLY GOD AND EQUAL TO THE FATHER.

"The Son " doesn't exist before he came to earth. He was just an ordinary person going by your logic

Emusan:


Yes! He got the Title 'SON' during His mission on earth.

God the Son is also a Title.

Reason I said, you don't understand the discussion you jump into.

Jesus is The ETERNAL WORD OF GOD.

So therefore the title and position of " God the Son " doesn't exist before Jesus came to earth.

Trinity in the mud

Emusan:


The Father knows the Day and Hour.

The Holy Spirit knows the very MIND OF GOD.

You haven't disagree with that.

You are missing the word " ONLY"

Jesus said ONLY THE FATHER knows.

Only

Only

Only

A single person, no one else.

If Holy spirit knows, that makes two persons that knows and Jesus lied

If holy spirit doesn't know, that automatically means it's not a person.

Pick your poison

Emusan:


That was because you don't understand the discussion you jump into

He wasn't a Son until his earthly mission, Can you just accept there wasn't God the Son or trinity before Jesus came to earth ?

Emusan:


Holy Spirit is a person and He KNOWS THE VERY MIND OF GOD!

Only then you will understanding why Jesus said ONLY THE FATHER KNOW.

How many persons know the Day and Hour?

Sand2022:


Even Father in the scriptures are also applied to people with beginning. Don't forget also that Jesus is called Everlasting Father.

This is misleading

Isa 9:6
Shall be Called ? Future tense, Indicated a beginning of time when he will bear the name.

Was there anywhere it says the Father shall.be called Father at a FUTURE period ?

None

Once again if Son of God doesn't mean created, show me a single place the Father was called that?

Emusan:


FIRSTBORN is different from FIRSTCREATED

Firstborn is used among human to mean human can give birth NOT CREATE, you can never say your father CREATED YOU.


Firstborn is used among RULERS to mean HIGH RANK, FIRST POSITION, PREEMINENCE E.T.C

The writers of the New Testament know the two words exist yet NEVER USED the word 'FIRSTCREATED' for Jesus Christ.

And Col 1:15-18 expressly shows that The firstborn used for Jesus IS ABOUT PREEMINENCE not as being BORN AS HUMAN.

Simple English!

And not once was the Father addressed with that word, that should tell you something. The word is exactly what it meant , Someone Born first. No one born the Father , hence no such term was applied to him

The Bible said God born the mountains, we know it means he created them. Born and create are used interchangeably in the scriptures

Emusan:


Jesus became 'SON' for His mission on earth how is that hard for you to understand?
If Jesus never come to earth for man salvation He won't have had the Title SON.

Col 1:15-18 already proved that Jesus is the CRRATOR.

A CREATOR can't be CREATED.

So there was no God the Son before he came to earth? you just single handedly capsize the ship of trinity

Emusan:


The Holy Spirit knows the VERY MIND of God.

So, why won't He know the Hour and day?

" only the Father know"
Are you denying it's a person distinct from the Father now ?

Emusan:


He was Son of God and FIRSTBORN when he became part of creation.

This was the point Col 1:15-18 addressed.



The Father is also THE BEGINNING don't forget.



Liar! The Father called Himself THE BEGINNING.

Beginning of what? If I may ask?

Show me where the Father was called " Son" to at least let us know it can be applied to Uncreated person.

Emusan:
You actually paint it as it should be.

Even Paul himself explained why Jesus is called FIRSTBORN.

In verse 18 "Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead. So he is first in everything."


Key note from this verse is that:
1. Jesus is called THE BEGINNING Just as God called Himself the Beginning
2. preeminence is @underlined

First in everything, everything include creation

Among all things and personalities created, he is the First.

Sand2022:
Last time I posted about the meaning of Trinity which many obviously don't know. Today, I will be writing about Jesus origin.

My previous belief was that Jesus was a creature. This is because of what I was taught as a JW. The view is that Col 1:15 says that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation. The organization understand that to mean that Jesus was the first person created by God. They also understand the same about Only Begotten. They understand that begotten mean created. That Jesus is the only person directly created by Jehovah. And that after Jesus creation, God used Jesus to create all other things. That is why if you notice in their translation they added "other" in Col 1:16. Their view made them to use "a god" in their translation of John 1:1.

However, as I further went through the scriotures, I realized that the view is lacking. Why?

Why Jesus is not a Creature:

See John 1:1-3 once more.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence."

The bold face phrase shows clearly that Jesus cannot be a creature. Since this verse says that apart from Jesus, NOT even ONE thing came into existence, we only have two option, 1. If Jesus was created, Jesus must be the one who created himself. Why? Because apart from him, nothing was made. 2. He was not created.

The latter conclusion seems plausible.

Secondly, the word "all" that appeared in verse 3 is "panta" which the New World Translation added "other" at Col 1:16. "Other" was not added at John 1:3. Obviously, because it can't fit the rest of the sentence. You cannot add "other" when the verse clearly said that apart from him not even one thing came into existence. It is also noteworthy that if you read col 1:16 in their interlinear, you will notice that "other" is not there showing that "other" was added.

Thirdly, The book of John was written after the book of Colossians. So John must have known what Paul wrote at col 1:15,16 before he wrote that apart from Jesus "not even one thing came into existence". This shows that neither John nor Paul thought that Jesus was part of creation. That phrase at John 1:3 also shows that John didn't mean that Rev 3:14 be understood to mean that Jesus was a creature. John 1:3 was written after the book of Revelation. This means that Col 1:15 doesn't fit the rest of the scriptures if we understand "firstborn" to mean first created. Firstborn can also mean preeminence as in Exod 4:22.

But let's see Col 1:15, 16 ones more.

Let us analyse Colosians chapter 1:15-16 first, then we shall see what this firstborn means.

See col 1:16-17

"because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all (other) things, and by means of him all (other) things were made to exist."

Why can we say that Jesus is not part of the creation?

The bible clearly says that all things created included both things visible and things invisible. This statement includes all created things in heaven. If Jesus was an invisible creature, then he created himself. If that is not plausible, then Jesus was not created. This scripture thus agrees with John 1:3, that not even one thing existed apart from Jesus.

Then why is he called the FIRSTBORN?

We read:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him."

This verse is clearly self explanatory. Notice that verse 16 explains the reason he is the firstborn. It says "BECAUSE by means of him all things were created..." This is self explanatory, he is the firstborn because all things were made by him. Firstborn in this sense means preeminence or Lord of creation. In him were all things created and for him. The same preeminence is pointed out in verse 18.

What about Prov 8:22?

I don't see this verse as a strong evidence of Jesus creation. Wisdom was used here and was seen to be possessed by kings and many others. Now in verse 22, it was said that Jehovah possessed the wisdom. The Hebrew word can be translated possess, purchase or beget. The latter can be found at Gen 4:1 beget a child. The same Hebrew word occured there. Certainly, Jesus is begotten by the Father. Begetal is not the same as created. You create from other materials while you beget your kind, your nature. Man begets a human. It should also be borne in mind that Apostle John knew about Prov 8:22 before he wrote at John 1:3 that"not even one thing came into existence" apart from Jesus. So we cannot take everything in Prov 8:22 as literal.

For example this Proverb appear to say that Jesus came sometime within the creative activity of Jehovah. But John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-17 says Jesus did ALL the creating, while God the Father must have featured in some way, Jesus is said to be the main creator. Not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus. Of course, what Jesus does is often said to be done by God and vice versa because they dwell within themselves. John 14:10. But since God the Father occupy the Headship role, he is often credited with ownership of the work most of the times.

In all this, John 1:3 is both more clear and rules out any supposition that Jesus is a creature. Heb 1:3 even stated that the universe, all creation is sustained by the word of his power. Can a creature sustain creatures? This shows that all things issued from him and he is their sustainer.

But what about Begotten?

Trinitarians agree that Jesus is begotten. Like I said above, He is begotten, not made. What is the subject of discussion is what begotten mean. Some are of the opinion that Jesus was generated by the Father from all eternity. Meaning that there was no time that the Son was not in existence. I personally think that God split Himself in two such that the other half didn't have beginning of experience at life, but have the same nature and experience as the Father. And for the purposes of having other conscious creatures like humans, they took roles, one Father, and the other Son. Then from Father and Son issue the Holy Spirit. The Father playing role of Headship, the Son acting a subordinate role. There are many reasons to reason this way, as I write more on the lofty position of Jesus, this will naturally start to make sense. But for now let's see why we cannot fix a beginning of experience for Jesus.

Let's start with Prov 8:22. When was the Son installed or brought up or begotten?

Prov 8:22-24, identifies it as "the beginning of his ways", earliest of his achievement of long ago", then verse 23 use the word " from". It says " from ancient times.

This might appear to suggest a beginning in time, but not until we understand the meaning of Ancient times. The same Hebrew word is used at at Psalm 93:2. We also see the same word used for Jesus at Micah 5:2. But notice what Psalm 93:2 says.

"Your throne was firmly established long ago; From eternity you have existed."

Notice that the word " from eternity" is used of the Father as well. This cannot make us to think that God the Father started from somewhere in eternity. See again at Hab 1:12

12 Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment.

This is just few of where the same word is used of God. So the word ancient time or when "from" is used, we should not be tempted to think of beginning of existence. At worse beginning of experience.

Some have thought of the word "Son" attached to "begotten", as in, "only begotten Son" to say that for he to be a son, of necessity demands that he have a beginning. We can understand why one will say that, at least that is our own experience as humans, but the nature of God is not flesh. All the analogy we use for God must be borne in mind that it is not all encompassing, there are limitations to our analogies. For example while he is called only begotten Son, he is also called only begotten God at John 1:18. This made many scholars to see the begotten as a way of differentiating the function of the Father from that of the Son. Jesus is also called Everlasting Father at Isaiah 9:6. It is becoming clear that this might be because of roles they undertook from everlasting.

Let us move to other things said about Jesus that shows that he MUST be of the same essence or nature as his Father.

We ll consider that next week Thursday.

The Fact that the word " Son of God " and " Firstborn" was never applied to the Father already showed this is just a futile attempt to dribble the truth.

Every occurrence of Son in the scriptures was applied to peope with beginning. That is why no such word is ever applied to the Father at any point in history.

Steep:
For you info steep believes the Holy Spirit is God.
Non of you can disprove the Trinity, you don't even understand what it is in the first place.
You think the trinity means the father, Son and Spirit are separate Gods. No, scripture declares the Son as God, the Spirit as God and the father as God same God not Gods.

For example 1 Timothy 6:15-16 refers to the father as the king of kings and Lord of lords but you also forgot that revelation 19 declares the Son as the King of kings and the Lord of lord. This becomes a contradiction to you but not to trinitarians like myself because we already know that the father Son and Spirit are one God.

If he is God, why doesn't holy spirit know the day and hour ?

Courz:


Look at the first bible verse in each screenshot below. Is that not Trinity in action? Why are you against these Bible verses? Why are you against the command by Jesus regarding baptism?

" When buried, it is a physical body; when raised, it will be a spiritual body. There is, of course, a physical body, so there has to be a spiritual body. " 1Cor 15:44

The temple of his body was raised a spiritual one.

Sand2022:
As a JW, one teaching I was opposed to was the trinitarian doctrine. I cannot see how Jesus can be God. I feel they are distinct persons and that Jehovah is the only God. That only Jehovah should be worshipped. When I became a JW, I was further told the meaning of Trinity, and I came to have more hatred for the doctrine. From what the witnesses taught me, I told myself that I didn't even believe this trinity even while I was in the church. Three persons in one God is contradictory to me.

I knew the proves the witnesses have against Trinity. As an elder I taught this from the platform then. But recently, I revisited that doctrine. This time through a personal scriptural analysis to see what the Bible has to say. But before I tell you what I found out scripturally, let us first look at the meaning of Trinity which for many years I never knew.

I found out that Trinity doesn't mean three persons inside one God. Rather three persons that has one Nature. The nature aspect is what I had missed for many years. I never understood it that way before.

Their are three persons, but they have one nature. From what I understand, when we think about God, we mean the creator of heaven and earth, MOST importantly, when we think of God, we mean our Deity. Now what trinitarians are saying is that there are more than one persons who match that description, but all of them possess the same features we have in mind when we say God. In other words they have the same Nature, but they are not one person.


Let's say it another way. When you say Human. You obviously know that the feature of humankind is not possessed by just one person. There are many, but they all have the same human features. So when you think about God, you are thinking about a nature. In that nature are three persons that possess it.

This is a huge game changer in my Trinity journey. You may have noticed that I have avoided Trinity subject in this board. This is deliberate. Prior to this time, I never believed that doctrine. And for some time, I delved into it, and started to see things differently. My approach to this subject might be different from what you have ever heard before on this subject because I did my study, and i also tried to view the subject from a JW perspective and saw that even from JW teaching, you cant run away from this one nature shared by the three, especially the two, father and Son.

In my part 2 of this trinity series, We will start from John 1:1. Let's trace Jesus origin once more. Check in next week Thursday.

Its actually great to revisit teachings from time to time. I must commend the open mind

Nevertheless the problem with this formular above is, that means humans who are to become SHARERS of that DIVINE NATURE, are GOD'S , are we ready to accept this ?

santaclaws:
One thing I've learnt about this VO9 vs Finidi saga is that it's better to keep quiet when one is angry, otherwise you might say things that would make you appear rude when you're overtaken by emotions... I've been in such situations a couple of times as well and most people will focus on what you said than how you feel.

The fact that he had an injury and couldn't play even if he wanted to must have made him feel the most pain and Finidi's statement was also wrong; you don't make people believe the wrong thing about others. He could've just reiterated what Osimhen said, but Finidi obviously didn't believe Osimhen had an injury and that was the genesis of all these.

VO9 is obviously a down-to-earth guy, but he allowed his emotions get the best of him and came through in an unusual way. Life goes on...

The Bold is true. Most times people even come for you when you retaliate and not when the initial toxic person started it.

One of my pals recently felt cheated by a man they did business together. The anger was so much that he felt like calling the Man and cursing, abusing his life , but we had to tell him to relax and not do it. This toxic man could Record the Call and present to the police as threat to life. Another Gbege, We also told him not to send any incriminating chats, because he was planning to text some stuffs in his anger, thankfully he didn't send it. It wasn't easy but I'm glad he listened.

Silence is difficult , but what helps is that one should remember emotional outburst gives temporary relief, but permanent damage. Silence on the other hand gives temporary discomfort, but permanent Respect.

Now there are times a person could lash out, when you have nothing to lose . But even that , make sure nothing is recorded. Internet is a big place, some videos or voice may come back to haunt. If you can't avoid not being recorded, either take the case to people above you that could settle it or just keep silent.

Have also seen cases where been silent actually unsettles the toxic person involved. they are scared , because they don't know your plans

Druss:


Wigwe is not his parent and there is nothing wrong with the timing of the event. What it shows is that the families were not close friends. Also if the Wigwes were not rich, would you have an issue? As a pastor, I would postpone my celebrations if any member of my church dies. However if someone less famous had died in the past and no one batted an eyelid, it would be hypocritical of them to postpone it. It is GOD that gives the power to make wealth.

The issue I have with the pastor is the unnecessary behaviours he and his wife has shown in that role. They have forgotten their position and duties and allowed the fame to go to their head. To invite Flavour as a senior member of redeemed was a bad example of proper behaviour especially when you contrast the wife with most RCCG pastors' wives. Then again I have my own thoughts on spouses of church people being given a role based on their copulation.

The bolded sound credible, perhaps there might even be some grudge between both Families

Segzy19:
See as this man just allowed his wife to land him into shame. All because he couldn't control his wife. I am very sure that it was his wife that personally wanted Flavour to sing at the party...

Men, this is a big lesson for you. No be everything you go dey allow your wife. These women ain't always objective and reasonable.... Take major decisions always as a man... Only allow your wife's decisions to stand if they are reasonable and objective.... Otherwise you will end in shame.

Now, it's the man that is at the centre of the shame, not the wife

No doubt @ bolded.

Good advice

This is similar to men who listen to women that tells them " let's marry like that, we will manage " , the moment she got the wedding she wanted, and he can't provide. People call for the head of the man and ask him why he married when he knows he can't provide. The man bears the shame

Newcastle2023:
The way some of us that should know better think and talk in the public space is very disturbing.

I very prominent man in your country that happens to be a Deacon in one's church tragically lost his life alongside his wife and first son, and you think the right thing to do in such an unfortunate circumstance is not to at least postpone the birthday party until after the burial of the deceased?

Let's endeavour to put ourselves in the shoes of others please.

Many people walking the streets of Nigeria do not have empathy.

Boyjaco:
birthday arrangement dey don dey place and it cannot be cancel na wa oo

I suspect there is some conflict between the deceased and this Pastors Family low key that prompted the supposed lack of empathy.

SavageResponse:


Well the church leadership is not angry with him because he invited Flavour to his wife's birthday bash, the main reason they are angry with him is the timing and flamboyance of the birthday party considering the fact that a major financial pillar of the church died in an accident less than a month before the party.

That party was very insensitive and disrespectful considering that almost the entire family of a very important parishioner was wiped out in one fell swoop!

I can't say why the woman did that, perhaps maybe they have some unsettled grudges with the deceased that is not obvious to the Media , maybe the deceased offend them, We never can say. But even if that's the case , they could have at least show some sensitivity for the Sake of their Reputation

ekhai:
THIS IS THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK. HOW CAN THE DEATH OF SOMEBODY AFFECTS THE PLAN OF ANOTHER PERSON. THAT MEANS IN THE RCCG, CLASS MATTERS. I PITY THE FINANCIALLY POOR MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH WHOSE DEATH WON'T BE NOTICED.

Some of you lots lack empathy, people would have called for the same for the poor member suppose there are evidences he was instrumental in some ways to the success of the place. It's not about Wigwe being Rich, there are other rich people that do not assist people with their money. It's about his philanthropy to the place , that's why people said he should have been shown some honor

FxMasterz:


Yeah, I hate ignorance and that's why I asked "won't you be disfellowshipped?" Your arrogance knows no bound.

The second question I'll like to ask is "Are the members of your GB aware you're attending Uni?" The third question is "Did you attend Uni after you joined the JW cult or before?"

For the records, there are many youths amoung Jehovah's witnesses in African and Europe ,others that have University Education or are currently enrolled in one, without any opposition from anyone. Nevertheless I won't totally dismiss your curiousity, because there have been Few Cases where some individual get treated differently because they choose to pursue a degree.

FxMasterz:


I have asked you several questions regarding this topic for which you've never offered an answer but keep asking irrelevant questions. I NEVER SAID University Education is MANDATORY. So, what's the relevance of those questions you've been asking?

I'm pointing out to you that God does not hate or discourage university education. Your GB is condemning it out of error. Instead of addressing that, you're asking unrelated questions.

Everyone should be free to do what he likes with his life as far as education is concerned. Discouraging it in the name of spirituality is evil. Why did you JWs condemn what God has not condemned? Simple question, Aemmyjah!

Due to the negative vices on Campus, immorality, cultism , drugs and other related things, Someone might warn another of the dangers, But Nothing in the Bible discourage University Education. It's a choice

achorladey:


An inspired Apostle for the Nations. Correct?

Yes

achorladey:


Because

He was only directed by the holy spirit right?

Yes, as an Apostle for the Nation's.

jaephoenix:

I'm an atheist but there can be good and bad christians too. Just like there can be good and bad atheists

Thanks for this point