Saturday, December 24, 2011

Sarcasm for Christmas

Let's all be a part of the world this time of year.It's hard not to do what the crowd does!Made this vid replete with a healthy dose of sarcasm last year.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

The Watchtower's "Faithful Slave"-a Few Concerns and Questions

Already blogged about this previously.This is that blog in a video form with a few minor adjustments.Hopefully there will be at least one or two little points within this that will make Jehovah's Witnesses think critically about governing body claims.Or that will help those who desire to reach JW's with the truth of Christ.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Responding to ex-Jehovah's Witness trinitarian Bibl3thumper's youtube video

I made a youtube video in response to ex-Jehovah's Witness youtube user Bibl3thumper's video where he asserts that the trinity,or rather the "deity of Christ", should be at the center of discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses.He didn't approve my video response,even going so far as to erase a comment on his video where I said I'd made a video response.I have seen Bibl3thumper engage others with whom he disagrees respectfully before,while NOT censoring them,so I didn't suspect that he'd resort to that.I would only understand resorting to that if someone had been hateful or disrespectful to you in some major way.Anyway,first is his video,then my two responses.Feel free to write me at with any respectful concerns or questions.

Please,everyone,test all things and make sure of what is good,for many will come to you in sheep's clothing making claims that seem sound on the surface.That with just a little biblical reasoning are easily refuted and proven both shallow and inconsistent.Much like the Watchtower,"orthodoxy" has it's fair share of such claims.Ex Jehovah's Witnesses are extremely susceptible to deception(again) because they want to fit in somewhere again and are used to having it all laid out for them by men,reading certain ideas INTO the bible instead of gleaning the truth from scripture.They're used to reading what they've been handed by men INTO scripture,and that practice can absolutely be repeated after leaving the Watchtower with another false system of worship and ideas.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Jehovah's Witnesses:5 integral Kingdom Questions!

Question # 1:

In Genesis 13,verses 14-17,Abraham is told to look all around him at the land that would be his inheritance,as well as his ""offspring's" inheritance.

Galatians 3:29 says:

"If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

The Watchtower would say that those who are "Christ's" are the anointed who go to heaven.So how could it be that those in Galatians 3:29 who are "Christ's",and also "Abraham's offspring",will not be heirs according to the "promise" actually given to Abraham & his offspring?That being,the "land"?Are we REALLY to believe that "Abraham's offspring",also known as ""Christ's"(or the anointed) according to Galatians 3:29 will not get the precise inheritance promised them in Genesis 13?Is there a separation here of two vastly differing promises like the WT boldly claims or is it the same promises for the anointed and the OT faithful like the scriptures explicitly claim?

Question # 2:

Hebrews 11:16 says that there is a "heavenly country" and a "city" "prepared" for the OT patriarchs,who the Watchtower claims will inherit a "new earth."

Problem is,Revelation identifies this "city" as "New Jerusalem",which the Watchtower claims is only for an anointed 144,000 and no one else.Why would something be "prepared",namely a "heavenly country" for the Old Testament faithful, if they have no hope of actually attaining it?

Matthew 8:11 says:

"Many Gentiles will come from all over the world--from east and west--and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven."

Again,the Watchtower says that "the kingdom of heaven" is reserved solely for 144,000 folks and NOT those who Matthew 8:11 says will actually be there.So question is:

On what basis did the Watchtower dogmatically determine that the "kingdom of heaven" won't be on the earth since the earth is actually promised to those who are said to be in the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God"?This naturally leads to the next question.

Question # 3:

Daniel 7:27 says :

"Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms *under* the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High."

Here we have the saints inheriting a kingdom "under heaven",do we not?Is this not the kingdom of heaven?Is it possible the heavenly kingdom will manifest on earth for the saints?Won't the "new earth",promised the OT patriarchs and NT Christians alike,be "under heaven" according to Daniel here?

Could it be that the kingdom is "prepared" in heaven(1 Pet. 1:4,5) but will be "revealed" when it "comes down"?

Revelation 21:2 enlightens:

"I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, COMING DOWN out of heaven FROM God and prepared as a bride"

So is this "city" being "prepared" "coming down" TO us..or are people going up TO it?It descends to the earth for the patriarchs and the Christians who will receive the same promises according to texts like Romans 15:8,where Christ is said to have "confirmed" the promises made to the OT patriarchs also to the Christians in the body of Christ.

Even further confirmation in Acts 13:32:

"And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers"

According to Genesis 13:14-17..what WAS that "promise which was made to the fathers" that was ALSO "glad tidings" for the *anointed* brothers and sisters in Acts?In these clear and easy texts,isn't it the promises to the "fathers" and "patriarchs" that are confirmed for the "anointed" Christians?Or is it some vastly "different" promise like the Watchtower claims?

Apparently,gifts from God are "prepared" and "reserved" in heaven,but they "come down" and manifest themselves on earth.(James 1:17)What God sources..every good gift from him,including the kingdom,"comes down" to us.Where does the bible say we have to fly up to heaven to receive our gifts that are prepared there?Doesn't the bible instead say those prepared gifts descend to earth?All believers are said to have a "heavenly calling"(Heb. 3:1) because we have a calling from God to be Christian,not because we fly away to heaven.

Question # 4:

Look out.This one's WAY explicit.

Revelation 20:9 describes an invading army that "advances over the breadth of the earth" as it "encircles the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city."(which we've already identified as New Jerusalem)Then it proceeds to say that "fire came down out of heaven and devoured them"(the army)...So question is:

If the "camp of the holy ones and the beloved city" is supposed to be in heaven as the Watchtower insists,then how in the world can it be invaded by an army that "advances over the breadth of the earth?"If "fire came down out of heaven" to devour those invading the "holy ones",wouldn't this suggest(ok.. explicitly confirm to be honest)that the "holy ones" would positively have to be on earth?Otherwise,how could an invading army advancing against them ON EARTH make any sense whatsoever?

But what about Jesus?Won't the "anointed" live with him?

Question # 5:

Acts 3:21 says about Jesus:

"He must remain in heaven *until* the time of universal restitution, which God announced long ago through the voice of his holy prophets."

Wouldn't this scripture suggest(ok..explicitly confirm to be honest) that Jesus will return to the earth since heaven only holds him *until* a certain time?Repetition for emphasis(which I learned from the Watchtower..thanks a lot!):

"He(Jesus) must remain in heaven *until* the time of universal restitution"

Notice "until" yet?

As a Jehovah's Witness,I must have observed the "passover" when I saw this text.I certainly passed over this text!Accidental,I promise.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 says that we are to "wait" for Jesus "from heaven",which seems to correlate,no?When someone comes "from" somewhere to ones who are "waiting",wouldn't that imply leaving where he currently is to go TO those ones?Especially when we consider he's only in heaven "until" the time of restitution?

Fact is,the kingdom of the heavens is NOT distinguished from "the inhabited earth to come"(Heb. 2:5) in scripture.The Watchtower may make prodigious attempts to convince you otherwise,but all these scriptures are clear enough.

Monday, September 12, 2011

God's hidden message in the genealogy of Genesis 5

Genesis chapter 5 contains the genealogy from Adam to Noah.Therein lies a code according to the Hebrew meanings of the names that is yet another poignant demonstration of the poetry and the marvelous prophetic significance of the holy inspired word of God.Yahushua the Messiah is the word of God made flesh and manifest in the last days,of course.So this hidden message in Genesis points to him as the fulfillment of the word of God as do so many other mechanisms in the OT.Yes,Yahushua is ALL through the OT.Not as an angel nor as God,but as the word of God prophesied,prefigured,foreshadowed,typified,and represented in a number of places and ways,in a number of OT figures and stories and prophecies.Even in clandestine "messages" like the one I'm about to assess.

Yes,let's examine these Hebrew names and their meanings to receive God's message.And also to determine whether this code proves that God became a man,as trinitarians like to believe.Like so many other Hebrew terms,the names of people generally have more than one meaning,so it isn't easy to dogmatically pin down only one proper way to view this code in my humble opinion due to the variety of meanings of the names therein.Most typically,this is the interpretation of the "hidden" message one will see(first we have the Hebrew name,then the meaning of it after):

Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.

So the code when translated could very well mean:
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow.The blessed God shall descend teaching. His death shall bring the despairing rest,or comfort.

It should go without saying that this message was intentional and inspired,a beautiful prophecy poetic in it's "surreptitious" presentation.Let's dissect whether or not this code fits like a puzzle piece into the truth of the rest of the inspired word of God.(of course it does!lol)Examine:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

This text of course correlates with "Man was appointed mortal sorrow" which was gathered from the names Adam,Seth,Enosh,and Kenan in the Genesis 5 geneaology.Romans 5 goes on to say that "many died through one man's trespass" ,"one trespass led to condemnation for all men",and "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners"(verses 15,18,and 19),all points which also corroborate the authenticity of this "code" being a significant prophetic message.Men went from being immortal and sinless,as God intended,to mortal and pitifully in bondage to sin as the consequence of one man's sin.Loss of life and the ability to please God perfectly because of our tainted flesh naturally leads to sorrow and pain.(Romans 7:14-25)

Thankfully,that isn't the end of either the code's message nor the message in Romans.That's only the bad news which people often like to hear before the GOOD NEWS!Further,the code says in the names of Mahalalel and Jared(I'll get into another possible interpretation a little later) that "the blessed God shall come down."

Trinitarians and others who believe Yahushua was the God of Deuteronomy 6:4(inexplicably considering the predominant biblical admonitions against such a view) will of course proudly wear their "See!!God came to earth as a baby/man to die for me!" glasses while conveniently ignoring the Hebrew semantic range of "elohim" in biblical times.In fact,they have to ignore a LOT of things to continue dogmatically asserting most of what they do.Let's examine the lexical possibilities for "elohim" and "theos"("God" in Hebrew and Greek) before we assert that "God" can only mean "Yahuwah's first,second,or third person OR Yahuwah's triune being." In fact,where does "God" EVER mean such concepts unless you choose to define it by use of a misguided theological presupposition or an abuse of inference.

The "Dictionary of biblical language with Semantic Domains" says that in the Hebrew OT ,the word God (אֱלֹהִים (ʾělō∙hîm)can also mean a "mighty one, i.e., a person who is strong and capable, and so a leader or prominent one" and also "majestic one, i.e., a person of high social status"..even "mighty, majestic things, i.e., things of nature that are awesome and large, majestic, and so awe-inspiring."Biblically speaking,the semantic range of "Elohim" is larger than the box in which trinitarians and the like would desire to force it.Larry Hurtado notes in "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus":

"Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term up to the end of the first century A.D.,there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics.”

Yes,in the scriptures,judges,kings,angels,and God's representatives are sometimes so termed "elohim."(John 10:35; Ps. 82:1,6,97:9,Ex. 4:16,7:1)Couple more significant quotes,accurate in my opinion because of their scriptural & historical support.:

As for the way "god" aka "el" or "elohim" or "theos" is used in scripture.. "The root from which the Hebrew "el" is derived indicates "strength or might" We should not be aghast to see it used of men in the OT.There is an element of strength and might associated with human authority."~Ron Frye,from "The father/son relationship"

"As we have seen "theos" may refer to the One True God but it may also be used of other individuals.It refers to other figures,human or heavenly,only when they are understood to exercise some office or function on God's behalf and when ASSIGNED that function or office BY GOD."~Marianne Thompson(the God of the gospel of John p.47)

So IF we choose to interpret "Mahalalel" as "blessed God"(this isn't the only possibility)then this presents no real problem to monotheism and unitarianism unless those who believe Yahushua is part of a triune "homoousios"(substance) aren't able to face the Hebrew semantic range of "el" or "elohim."This ultimately may all be beside the point because it could very well be that the name "Mahalalel"more accurately means "The Praise OF God" or "The Blessed OF God."(as opposed to the blessed God)This also fits with scripture.(Matt. 9:8,Jn. 12:28,Matt. 3:17)There should be no dogmatic stance insistent upon either interpretation because they're equally valid.

Since the name "Jared" can mean "shall come down",let's determine where this particular phrase is corroborated in the holy inspired word,in relation to the descent of Christ of course.James 1:17 demonstrates the view of the Hebrew bible authors when it states rather plainly that :

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

There is quite literally no greater gift to mankind than Yahushua from God.Yahushua was "from above" like any other gift from God.Christ said,however,in the gospel of John,that his "flesh" came down.This would present a real problem for trinitarians considering they think it was a spirit that "came down."Yes,they think it was God who had NO flesh who "came down" to RECEIVE flesh...Something Yahushua in John's gospel refutes.

John 6:51:I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John's gospel also says that the Son of MAN descended.(John 3:13)Why wouldn't this present a real problem for trinitarians who maintain that God descended into a womb to BECOME a man?According to John's gospel,again,it was a flesh man who came down.A man with flesh from heaven.Obviously,Christ and John incorporate figurative language because EVERY good gift comes down from heaven.So does the kingdom!
God's "word" is his every prophecy,one of which is communicated in the Genesis 5 genealogy,spectacularly enough.And who was the father's word manifest in and through?Well,the Last Adam,of course.So God's word of life(Messiah's flesh for the immortality of mankind) "came down" as God's greatest gift to mankind.It might be figurative but it's the way the Hebrews thought and wrote about any gift that came from heaven with God as it's source.I don't think that Hebrew concept would change in their hidden messages from God,which are simply going to affirm the scriptures and not stray from them.

It is certainly noteworthy that "Jared"(which we've so far interpreted to mean "come down") can also mean "going away from a place of prominence" or "one who is humbled".. If this perchance instead be the case in this hidden message,then that TOO would equally befit scriptural truth.In Philippians chapter 2:6-8 and 2 Corinthians 8:9,a rich man became poor for our sake by humbling himself all the way to death on a cross!This would most definitely correlate with the other possible meaning of "Jared" where a "humbling" could be in view instead of a "descent."This particular interpretation may even fit even better with what comes directly afterward in the message.(namely,Christ's death since it was a "humbling" at the cross,as opposed to an "incarnation" in a womb that led to his death)We further have the name "Enoch" which can mean "teaching" or "dedicated."(among other things)Christ was both a great teacher and dedicated to his mission as destined savior of the world.

Finally,we have the names Methuselah,Lamech,and Noah which ultimately probably mean(when interpreted together) "His death shall bring the despairing rest,or comfort."This brings us full circle back to Romans chapter 5 where we at last get to indulge in the GOOD news!Paul in Romans delves into Messiah's "death" that would bring us "comfort."We already covered earlier the "bad news" portions about how the first Adam's sin lead to death for all men.Now let's wrap our heads around the entire passages as a whole to glory in the promises,love and salvation of God in Christ our Lord!:

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now ithe law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I LOVE how this hidden message in Genesis demonstrates that Yah knew the end from the beginning.(Is. 46:9,10)How it proves that his "word of life" was in and with him in the beginning as the prophesied Messianic savior that eventually would manifest to give immortality and hope to a mortal and wounded world.(1 John 1:1,2,Titus 1:2,Galatians 4:4)This was the most important and significant message of all..the word of God made flesh in a savior whose humbling and death would bring salvation and life to those who exercise faith.:)

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Sean Finnegan-5 Major Problems with the Trinity

Please visit:

from which I found this.

This isn't about who's right and who's wrong,amounting to ego.This is about KNOWING the only True God and His Son.(John 17:3)In order to do that,knowing their true identities is essential.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Wisdom in the Old Testament:Person or Personification?

There are a few points here you've already seen in some of my other blogs if you've read them.I was trying to simplify it all yet again. Hope this helps.

Wisdom is personified a number of places, and when it sounds like Yahushua sometimes that would be because it's alluding to him and that's what he would become. We must heed God's thoughts as best we can.Christ was real to God before he was real to the world, in an extremely thoughtful and poignant way. Would it really be so shocking for God to create everything(even in Genesis) in or for the sake of the Lamb that would redeem the world considering he's a God who:

1. Sees the end from the very beginning (Isaiah 46:10)
2. Sees things that aren't as though they are. (Rom. 4:17)

God knew he would give life to the world in Christ. So should it really be surprising that all things are said to be in and through Christ, without Christ having to be the actual creator of Adam, birds, bees, and trees?After all, texts like Colossians 1:16 say all things were through Christ (who is elsewhere identified as a flesh man), as opposed to God or an angel.

God's wisdom symbolized something more than just what a basic attribute entails. In some cases, much like his "word", it symbolized and represented God's plans to give life to the world in Yahushua.His greatest plan of wisdom ever conceived or birthed. God's Wisdom was revealed in a flesh man, as opposed to being the name of a spirit entity.

How exactly, scripturally speaking, was Yahushua the Wisdom of God?

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God *decreed* before the ages for our glory.

So he's the decreed wisdom (manifest to the world when it was time), not a spirit named Wisdom if we allow scripture to define it's own terms.

When we examine the following scriptures simply and thoughtfully, there should leave little to no doubt that when Wisdom is signified as creator, it is a personification of such, and not a literal second person next to God as such. So please carefully examine the following (my thoughts & brief questions for those who believe Wisdom was a spirit who was also the pre-existent Christ-with-another-name are in parentheses) :

Proverbs 3:19: The Lord by wisdom founded the earth;
by understanding he established the heavens;(Wisdom is a spirit creature but understanding isn't?)

Psalm 104:24: O Lord, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.(Two wisdoms?One of God's & another spirit named just that both are in sight here?)

Psalm 136:5: to him who by understanding made the heavens,
for his steadfast love endures forever;(And I suppose Yahushua was a spirit named Understanding too?)

Jeremiah 10:12: It is he who made the earth by his power,
who established the world by his wisdom,
and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.(How is Wisdom a person and understanding and the like are not if consistency & logic means anything?)

Jeremiah 51:15 “It is he who made the earth by his power,
who established the world by his wisdom,
and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.(Established the world by Wisdom the spirit creature?)

Hebrews 4:4:"And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."(Why didn't Wisdom the spirit rest,anywhere,ever?)

1 Corinthians 1:24 says:

"To those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Again,how WAS he the "wisdom of God"?As spirit entity?OR:

1 Corinthians 1:30:It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has ***become*** for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Notice the terminology like "has become for us" that should succintly inform us of how and when it was Christ manifested as "Wisdom." This Wisdom, again, was defined explicitly also as a "decree." This decree would apparently manifest in the flesh as the man Yahushua when the "fullness of time came" (Gal. 4:4) for the father's wisdom to be made flesh to the world, and not before. It is my view that God brought this decree forth (poetically speaking) before he even made man, foreknowing the fall and the dire need of redemption that would result. In that regard, I believe texts like Prov. 8:22-31 have possible poetic allusions to Yahushua as opposed to literal statements about him .He was God's prototype for man and idea for life giving sustenance for us in the mind and heart of the God who "knew the end from the beginning", again, even then. It is irresponsible imo to arbitrarily pick and choose where you will literalize "wisdom"(or not) in the OT. Consistency is called for. Three quotes & thoughts from scholar James Dunn's "Christology in the Making.":

"When Paul and others attribute Wisdom's role in creation to Christ was this intended literally(Jesus himself was there at creation) or do we have some form of poetic hyperbole, which their readers would recognize to be such?--here once again the context of meaning for the first Christians is all important."-p.167

"In order to understand what meaning such words and statements had for those who used them, WE MUST INTERPRET THEM IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE USED."--p.170(emphasis mine)

"Talk of his (Jesus') preexistence ought probably in most,perhaps in all,cases to be understood,on the analogy of the preexistence of the Torah, to indicate the eternal divine purpose being achieved through him ,rather than preexistence of any personal kind."(lost page #,sorry)

It would seem to me, based upon scriptures and reason and the milk of the word,that Arians and the like have it backward. They see where wisdom is personified and literalize it. Instead of being able to recognize THAT it's being personified as God's wisdom, simply. Yes, it's intensely personified. Yes, personification makes what's being personified sound like it's a real person. That is why it is so termed & the actual purpose of it. The wisdom and word passages being applied to Christ was Hebrew thinking. They also did this with passages they freely applied to Christ that were also applied to God, David, Solomon, Melchizedek, Moses,Jonah (etc.). It's how they thought and wrote. The snake on the pole to which the Israelites had to gaze to keep living wasn't literally Christ even though he fulfilled that when he conquered sin on the cross..The manna on which the Israelites fed for sustenance wasn't literally Christ though his flesh was the true bread from heaven as he *became* the true manna. Similarly, God's personified wisdom in the OT wasn't literally Christ but he became and fulfilled that as well. Yes,"in him(Christ) lie hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col. 2:3)

Christ,poetically and profoundly enough, was the fulfillment of all things. It was Hebrew thought to express this deep truth & Christ's cosmological significance by applying the functions of God's prophets & servants,God's wisdom, even a few times of God himself to Christ in the NT. Because, given all power, he fulfills these functions beautifully. Yes, even some of the functions of God because God gave those to him, but let us not forget texts like 1 Corinthians 15:28 that shed light upon the matter. Similarly, let us use the texts about how God created that I went over earlier to establish our "milk of the word" by which we can properly assess all the other information given, making sure not to misuse it.

God creating in his wisdom becomes God creating in Christ because Christ became the wisdom of God. Simply stated, again, "Jesus *has become* our wisdom sent from God."(1 Cor. 1:30)What Christ represented, became and fulfilled was there from the beginning, namely God's wisdom. The father's wisdom came to life and manifest in Christ's flesh at the proper time, as opposed to some literal spirit named Wisdom crawling into a womb to become a man. Such a notion is NOT communicated in any of the detailed birth narratives, which I'm assuming are explicit in their face valueness..Were this the case, surely it would have been crystal clearly articulated because it would be downright astounding. Certainly not a detail to neglect mentioning. Instead what we have is personification of God's wisdom, even sometimes of his wisdom "decree", and then that being manifested in the last days, which is when the Hebrews say it was that God actually spoke in and through his "Son."(Heb. 1:2), conveniently enough.To quote Karen Armstrong, who is a British author and commentator & the author of twelve books on comparative religion:

"Like the divine Wisdom,the "Word" symbolized God's original plan for creation. When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of pre-existent life, they were not suggesting he was a second divine "person" in the later trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the "power" and "wisdom" he REPRESENTED(emphasis mine) were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed what was there from the beginning. These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently."--from "A History of God:From Abraham to the present: the 4000 year quest for God", p.106

Yahushua came to be identified with the very wisdom of God. In his fulfillment of all things.In his eschatological and kingdom significance. etc. There was a divine mind and purpose, identified with wisdom, by which God made, ordered, directed, (etc.) the very universe. Christ was not that literal function or attribute,yet he came to embody it beautifully and perfectly. Not as spirit/creator/angel,but as the Messiah that came to be identified (as opposed to always having been identified literally) with that wisdom by which God created. There's simply no denying the poetry of the Hebrews when it came to the wisdom of God. I don't think they abandoned that poetry in the NT. I think they still incorporated it when Yahushua became that wisdom. James Dunn notes in "Christology in the Making":

"His (Paul's in Corinthians) aim,as we have seen, is to assert that the same divine power is active both in creation and in salvation; he achieves this by describing Christ the Lord in Wisdom language; his meaning then would be that the power of God in creation came so fully to expression in Christ's death and resurrection that it can be said of Christ what was said of Wisdom..that is to say,since presumably for Paul too Wisdom was not a being distinct from God, but was the "wisdom of God"(1 Cor. 1:24), God acting wisely..(skipping ahead a little) In other words, Christ is being identified here not with a pre-existent being but with the creative power and action of God. And the thought is not of Christ as pre-existent but of the creative act and power of God now embodied in a final and complete way in Christ." p.182

Simplified: God created in his wisdom and understanding, by words from his own mouth, quite literally. Christ became God's wisdom and word to the world in the flesh, as the Christ. What prefigured and foreshadowed Christ in the OT could be applied to Christ in the NT, according to a pattern the bible authors establish, and not just in the case of "Wisdom." We must let God establish our milk first, so that these deeper things can be assessed within their proper larger biblical context and pattern of thought. There should be no confusion when we pore the milk first. No pun intended. The milk in all it's unambiguous simplicity, that is. If the bible has no contradictions, did the father create absolutely alone? (Is. 44:24,Mal. 2:10,Matt. 19:4) According to the texts I went over earlier, in what way did he do so? According to the texts I went over earlier, how was Christ the Wisdom of God when we allow it to define it's own terms?

Please understand that by my expressing all this, I am not negating the frequent NEW creation context of the NT creation passages. I just think it goes a little deeper because God's mind & thoughts do,and the writers were inspired. Because God's word of life, his wisdom decree, was foreknown and with him from the beginning. Manifest and made flesh in Yahushua when the right time arrived. He became identified with that same wisdom & word by which God created. Which the Hebrews intensely personified because it represented God's outreach to mankind without compromising his transcendence. Also, as that which would come to be manifest finally in Christ perfectly..God always spoke by his wisdom (and his wisdom has frequently manifest through others), and in the last days that wisdom became a Son by which he spoke and guaranteed salvation and a kingdom. God's wisdom manifest indeed!

It was a pattern for bible writers to apply OT truths to Yahushua in the NT. Functions that he filled, ones that he was made and given. Also, foreshadowings and prefigurings that he became. Do you think that halted with Wisdom? I personally don't.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Does John 12:41 prove that Jesus is Yahweh?

Greg Stafford,in an essay he wrote on this topic in response to James White,summarizes:

"The teaching of John 12:41 is simple,straightforward and otherwise(that is,apart from trinitarianism)clear,Isaiah saw the "glory" of the Christ's humanity,suffering,and death for our sins while being dishonored among men,as a man,which teaching John develops throughout John 12 and specifically from verse 16 onward.(see John 12:16,23,32-34,37-41),using the same verbs(doxazo,hypso'o,pistueo,and horao)and the same substantive(doxa)that we find in the LXX of Isaiah 52:10,13,14,15 and Isaiah 53:1,2,and 4.John observes that,like the suffering servant of Isaiah 52& 53(specifically 53:1 which he quotes in John 12:38),the crowd did not "put faith in him (Jesus)"(John 12:36,37 [where,again,in both texts and in verse 38 we find forms of the verb for "believe," pistueo]),which is the same language Isaiah used when speaking of Messiah:"Jehovah,who has believed(LXX: epistuese(form of pistueo)our report?And to whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed?"Is. 53:1,John 12:38

Find the link to the PDF of Stafford's refutation to James White here:

Highly recommend reading it.

Another helpful source:

Joel Hemphill on 1 Timothy 3:16

Please visit:

from which I found this.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Are death and immortality synonyms?

Your typical orthodox Christian believes that man was made in God's image and hence can never *truly* die in that death to them means only a body dies while a soul lives on.In other words,to typical Christians,even death means life.Even in death there exists immortality.They don't think the person perishes,only the person's body with no one in it.The bible says in 1 Tim 6:15-16:

"God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,who *alone* is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light"

From what I've examined prayerfully in scripture(and this paragraph is kind of on a side note..forgive me),when the bible says God "alone" is something,it doesn't mean no one else can be.What it means is that no one else is but by his granting or allowance.In other words,God gives to all and no one has to give him anything at all.For him,it's a "given."For us,it's a "gift."For example,scripture says God alone is immortal,but others can be MADE immortal by him.God alone is savior,but others can be sent by him to save,essentially becoming saviors...etc..(Isaiah 43:11,1 Samuel 23:5)

If God makes us immortal or grants us the gift of everlasting life,it is only then that we can boast of possessing what God originally intended for man before sin entered the picture.No,those overcome with sin do not receive immortality.This should be clear.In fact,it was God's whole point in Genesis when conversing with Adam about the consequences of failing to exercise faith properly.Immortality and life after death weren't the outcome of disobedience!So why is it taught by mainstream Christianity that disobedience breeds immortality just like exercising faith does?

I'm not sure what God could have possibly said to define death for us so that we could know what it is.Could he have said that the dead don't think or breathe?Well,he did.(Ps. 146:4)Could he have said they sleep and cease to function?Well,he did.(Ecclesiastes 9:5,10,John 1:11)Could he have said that the only hope is a resurrection BACK to life to prove that the dead aren't alive?Well,he did.(John 5:25,Acts 24:15)The Book of Wisdom says in 2:23,24(from the New Jerusalem Bible):

"For God created human beings to be immortal,he made them as an image of his own nature;*Death came into the world only through the Devil's envy*,as those who belong to him find to their cost."

Here the author agrees with the bible when it contrasts,as opposed to compares,immortality and death.Here we see that God intended man to live forever,inhabiting and caring for a perfect earth in peace and happiness(according to Genesis),but death came upon men through the sin of the first man.(Romans 5:17,18)It is only an exercising of faith in the Lord and his God that we receive the GIFT(as opposed to the "given") of immortality.If sinners automatically receive everlasting life(in whatever capacity) this would make moot of God's sentiments to the first Adam that he would "surely die" if he were to sin.(Gen. 2:17)God should have said something like "you will surely live forever in agony instead of bliss" instead were the orthodox view of death palpable.Death is the stark opposite of life.In life there is breath and vitality and awakeness.In death,lack of breath and unconsciousness.Again,death is the antithesis to life as opposed to the equivalent.God uses terminology such as "ashes" and the like to communicate easy reasoning about death for our consideration,to define it precisely for us in fact so that Plato and others shouldn't have been able to fool us.When we go beyond that terminology with our own ideas is when we fall into error.God used specific language to educate and instruct us, and I would guess he never desired for us to discard common sense use of the simplistic terminology he kindly provided by going (far)beyond what he said with contradictory propositions to accommodate long held traditions.The bible says in Deuteronomy 30:19:

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."

Here again we have a clear contrast in life and death.They are not synonyms.If death meant "life in bliss" or "life in hell" after the body dies with no one in it,then it would be a synonym with life.Where IS the contrast in life and death,in turning to ashes and receiving immortality for Christians?If you don't comprehend the simple and appropriate contrast,then when and how was it lost?Ashes,consumption,not breathing or thinking,sleeping(etc.) all apparently mean "awake and alive"(nonsensically enough) to Christians.

The bible doesn't define immortality as two good,the other scary.It defines our hope of glory in Christ as an immortality worth seeking with everything we have,every ounce of that concept of immortality being fantastic!Nothing scary about it.Gehenna(hell in Greek) is scary,but it consumes.(Matt. 3:12,Mal. 4:3)Yes,the fate of those who don't seek the precious gift of immortality is described as "death","perishing","destruction","consumption","ashes".(Rom. 6:23,Jn. 3:16,Matt. 3:12,Mal. 4:3)The wicked are tossed into the lake of fire(or the second death from which there can be no resurrection in it's frightening hopeless finality)along with death and hades.The bible also says death will "exist no more"..It is the last enemy to be utterly destroyed.(1 Cor. 15:26)So apparently whatever is thrown into the lake of fire(including the wicked and death) will be utterly and irreversibly destroyed.(Rev. 20:14,Matt. 10:28)Therefore there is no "eternal dying process" nor blessed gift of immortality for the wicked.How could anyone miss these basic truths?

2 Tim. 4:3:For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

You simply cannot say death will be no more when it's tossed in the lake of fire but that the wicked will be forevermore alive in the flames of that same lake.That would defy logic and basic common sense,assigning the same lake within the same scriptural passage with two different functions,to suit a theological presupposition.This would not be honest exegesis,but rather egregious eisegesis.The two functions that Christians assign the same lake in the same text are to preserve the wicked while destroying death.Two complete opposite functions from the same source within the same text!While they at the same time propagate the opposite of what the bible says when they claim that death will actually exist forever in a process of sadistic torture for the wicked.If death for the wicked means eternal life in flames and death will be destroyed,then how could death be perpetuated eternally in flames that preserve the wicked infinitely?Either death will be destroyed OR there will be an "eternal dying process",which is how I've heard some Christian apologists describe the fate of the unrighteous.It can't be both ways.I'm sure many traditionalists would say "death will be no more for the righteous but perpetuated infinitely only for the wicked."However,the bible simply says that it won't be anymore at all,while failing to acknowledge it's preservation for most of humanity like traditionalists choose to do.If there is automatic immortality in death for both the righteous and unrighteous(according to traditionalists),would it be true that those who inherit the kingdom of God will be dead eternally?If the dead are alive(both the righteous and unrighteous dead),I'm assuming so?

One of the most enticing savory morsels of good news in scripture is that the righteous can receive immortality.This gift of eternal life for us was manifest when God's "word of life",or his plans to give life to the world, became flesh in Yahushua.(1 John 1:1,2,John 1:14)This eternal life plan of the Father for mankind in his beloved Son will culminate in a kingdom where death will be no more,neither sickness,mourning nor pain.(Rev. 21:3,4)Yah's kingdom will put an end to all the kingdoms of this world and will last forever and ever.(Dan. 2:44)So question is:

"Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God..(2 Peter 3:11-13)"

Yes,"according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."(2 Peter 3:13)Like our Lord said: "blessed are the meek,for they shall inherit the earth."(Matt. 5:5)

God has put it in out hearts to desire immortality and to desire his approval and love because that's what he can provide for us.(Ecc. 3:11)He doesn't give us any righteous desire that he isn't willing to meet if we listen to him.(Eph. 3:20)The immortality he put in our hearts wasn't a promise of eternal pain for us if we're wicked in one of it's supposed two spectrums.Put quite simply,so that even a child could understand:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."(Rom. 6:23)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."(John 3:16)

Again we have a contrasting of death and perishing with eternal life.They're not synonyms in any respect.One involves lack of breath and life..the other breath and life eternally.The latter is God's word made flesh.Our hope of glory in Christ.Thy kingdom come!

The former(death) is described further in the book of Wisdom(which I will end here with because it was Wisdom 2:23,24 that inspired this blog to begin with):

"The breath in our nostrils is a puff of smoke,reason a spark from the beating of our hearts;extinguish this and the body turns to ashes,and the spirit melts away like the yielding air."

Scripture is clear that when the spirit leaves the body,there is no life left anywhere except that God can return your life in a resurrection.Hence the metaphorical "spirit returning to God" when we die because he will give our lives and breath and animation(spirits) back in a resurrection.(Spirit means "breath" but entails more in that there's a spark of life that animates our souls.)In this remarkable sense,our "spirits" are in God's hands.The focus is always life in a opposed to life in death.There is life in death only in the sense that the dead are promised a resurrection.The resurrection is of entire persons and not bodies with no persons in them,common sensically as well as biblically.When Yahushua preached that we would be raised at the last day,he wasn't preaching that we'd already be alive before we came back alive.If so,surely there would have been some serious clarification somewhere because that notion would be astounding considering our hope from biblical cover to cover is a resurrection back to life FROM death,as opposed to life AT or IN death(as if they're synonyms instead of antonyms)itself.God doesn't intend to confuse us with basic essential doctrines.He states them so simply that even children can grasp the truth.(see John 3:16,again)Seek for immortality.If you do not exercise faith,God did not promise it to you.Those who teach eternal life(even if it's in torment) for the wicked misunderstand a very basic bible truth.Follow the path of Yahushua and let everyone know they can receive eternal life in a resurrection if they exercise faith in the Messiah.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Hebrews 5:8 and Philippians 2:5:rightly dividing the word of truth

This blog is the third(and possibly last,who knows) in a series where I go over texts that I personally think correlate with the humiliation of Christ in Philippians chapter 2,hence properly defining it for us.So that we don't even need to read our own ideas into anything.Of course,the context of Philippians 2 itself should make it very apparent for the discerning how Philippians should be understood.:)In other words,as a rich man(the Son of God,God's image) serving instead of being served.Even dying like a criminal though he didn't deserve such a fate!We're meant to learn something from the example given for Christ in Philippians.Namely,humility and self sacrifice.NOT "deity willing to become human."So the third scripture in this series is Hebrews 5:8.I also,in this blog,get into how "morphe"(form in Philippians) is misused by trinitarians.

Hebrews 5:8:Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered

Now this scripture also correlates explicitly with the one we went over in the last blog on this subject,namely,Matthew 20:28.And we learned from that text that as the Son,he was a MAN in the form of God,as opposed to the second person of a trinity in the form of God.

Trinitarians will read the presupposition "Son of God means Yahushua IS God" into simple texts.What an imposition!The proper humiliation in view in Hebrews 5:8 and Philippians 2 is that although he was a very rich man who deserved to be served(and certainly not to die!),one in the image of God as his Son,Christ still learned obedience from suffering,even unto death.We sincerely find in Luke 1:35 that "the power of the Most High" "overshadowed Mary" and that it was for *that* reason that Christ was God's Son.So working from there,"Son of God" means that the only true God(Jn. 17:3) was the father of the uniquely begotten human being Yahushua,not that Yahushua was "the second person of a triune God essence."Again,let's allow scripture to interpret itself.Yes,let scriptures like Luke 1:35 tell you why Christ is the Son of the Living God and not your pastor(or parents or anyone else) who might contradict or go beyond it.

Yes,"form of God" from Philippians 2 means he was the Son of God,not as pre-existing spirit,but as Last Adam born of God.This correlates with "Son" in Hebrews and in Matthew 20:28.Sons and daughters of God,even the unique one(namely,Christ),are NOT God.They are his children.Though Christ was the forerunner and uniquely born,he was and is still a child of God,not a child of God's first person,but a child of God.Period.And "form of a servant" from Philippians correlates with "learned obedience from what he suffered" in Hebrews.This means he appeared before everyone,not high,lofty,& rich as heir and king,but rather humbly and lowly,serving and suffering for others willingly.

If I am right that Hebrew 5:8 correlates with Philippians 2:5-8,then when we substitute the trinitarian interpretation of Philippians into this Hebrews passage,we get some real problems.This would mean "Son" would have to mean "pre-existing deity"(contradicting Luke 1:35 and Matthew 20:28 where in both instances Christ is Son as a human and not as God) while "learned obedience from what he suffered" would be "God took on a man nature",instead of the truth that a rich man as Last Adam "humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death."This apparently happened when he became poor for our sakes so that we too could become rich,as opposed to when the second person of a trinity became man.

I think it would make much more sense to say "Son"(from Hebrews 5:8) means the same as "form of God" from Philippians 2:6(again,as a very rich sinless human being uniquely begotten of God),while "learned obedience from what he suffered" from Hebrews correlates with "took the form of a servant" from Philippians.

Trinitarian theologians will claim something like James White does when he says "form" in Philippians 2:6 means "the outward display of the inner reality of substance"(people are ACTUALLY buying this)which is HIGHLY improbable given the use of the word in other texts where it has nothing to do with an inner substance.(Mark 16:12,2 Timothy 3:5,Dan. 3:19,Is. 44:13)In such texts(please look them up for yourselves)"form" means resemblance or likeness,something having to do with appearance,JUST LIKE eikon(or image),which even the first Adam,who was a type of the Christ to come,had of God.Therefore,morphe does not appear to mean "substance of being."We say someone is in the "form" of something or someone if he behaves like,accomplishes what,or appears like that something or someone by doing so. Christ looked like God in what he accomplished because God was in him working through him as his beloved Son and rich heir(2 Cor. 5:19,Acts 2:22,Jn. 14:9)Sons always resemble their fathers.He said to see him was to see the father,not because they're the same God,but because he was doing and saying what God would say and do because God,again,was IN him.When God is in someone,that means that person ISN'T God.When God or Christ is IN us,that means we are neither one ontologically or in substance of being.We're still humans with our own identity.Despite having God richly within him,fully in fact(Jn. 3:34,Col. 2:9),Yahushua made the decision to appear as a servant,doing things like washing the disciples feet(Jn. 13:5) and dying on a cross.Though he could do things as exceptional as calling for legions of angels if he so desired as the "form of God"(God's Son),he never seized such opportunities.(Matt. 26:53)

The word form (morphe) and image (eikon) are interchangeable. R.P. Martin ("Morphe in Philippians 2:6," Expository Times, Vol. 70, no.6, March 1959, 183-184) states that:

"Morphe and eikon are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX."

James Dunn states in Christology in the Making pg.115:

"It has long been recognized that morphe and eikon are near synonyms."

So,again,even the first Adam had the image of God.Christ is said to have the image of God in Colossians 1:15.Children of God have the image of God,like the first and Last Adam.And they can also have(or obtain) the image of a servant if they serve.That would be an example of someone rich becoming poor.If that one had the image of God as his Son and king but decided to be a servant of others,even unto death if it came to that.This is the only possible way we could have "this mind in us"(Phil. 2:5),that of the REAL Yahushua in view in children of God/kingdom heirs willing to serve and even die for others if necessary.A mind we could never ever even imagine having would be one of God or Angel willing to become a human being.

In review:
Would you agree that "Son" in Hebrews 5:8 correlates with "form of God" in Philippians?If so,can you prove that he was Son AS God,as opposed to as a human being uniquely begotten of God?Wouldn't texts like Luke 1:35 and Matthew 20:28 explicitly communicate the latter?Doesn't the bible say that we can become sons and daughters of God thanks to Christ?Does this mean we're God?If not,why does child(or Son) of God mean Christ is God if sons of God are never "God"?Being the unique Son by no stretch of the imagination suddenly means he's the same God "being" of his own father.Would you agree that "he learned obedience from what he suffered" from Hebrew 5:8 correlates with ""took the form of a servant" and "became obedient to the point of death" in Philippians ch. 2?If so,did he learn obedience by becoming a man as God,or,as a rich man,by serving and obeying God faithfully,even unto death?In other words,is taking the form of a servant and learning obedience to the point of death an "incarnation" of the second person of a triune essence OR an anointed king and sinless heir with the image of God suffering and serving others and dying in utter humiliation as if he were a criminal,though he really wasn't at all?In scriptures like Mark 16:12,2 Timothy 3:5,Dan. 3:19,and Is. 44:13 does "morphe"(form in Greek,as used in Phil. 2:6) mean "inner substance" as trinitarians often assert or "outward appearance?"If the latter,then wouldn't that definition be synonymous with "eikon"(image in Greek),as many scholars note?Didn't even the first Adam have the image of God?Did that make him God?If not,why does form,or image,of God make Christ God?Wouldn't it rather suggest,reasonably speaking of course when logic isn't thrown by the wayside to accommodate a doctrine, that he in fact ISN'T God,but rather the image or form of Him?If you're the image of your father,do you then partake of his very being or somehow become the very same human?If not,why and how does Christ,by being the image of his father,suddenly partake of the very same "being" of his father,essentially becoming the same entity?

Although Christ was the Son of God as a rich man,he learned obedience from what he suffered.Although we become rich as children of God,will we learn obedience from what we suffer?

Matthew 16:24:Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me."

This is what we're supposed to learn from Philippians 2:5-8 also.NOT that although we're God in essence,we must learn how to become men.It's given as an example for us to follow,not as a fanciful Greek philosophical metaphysical notion we couldn't possibly.Yes,although rich,we must serve others even unto death if necessary!That way we obtain a precious inheritance similar to Christ's.

I may write one final blog on this subject and cover a little more how Philippians chapter 2 compares/contrasts the Last man Adam from the first.This was commonly done at the time Philippians was written,and I think it is very obvious in the case of Philippians 2's humiliation that led to exaltation.Just think of the first Adam's pride that led to humiliation.Will we be like the first Adam and be proud,and hence humbled?OR the Last Adam(also rich as the image of God like the first) and be humble all the way to exaltation?To me,it is obvious in this case that Paul was trying to communicate how Christ is the antithesis of the first Adam.Both rich images of God,one taking advantage and being humiliated for it.One not,and being rewarded for it. Now THAT'S something we can learn from.Right? I personally couldn't apply "deity becoming human" in my own life,nor does it heed,much less do justice,to Paul's context and correlating scriptures.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Jehovah's Witnesses and Questioning Authority(excerpt from a Ray Franz book)

1 John 4:1:Dearly loved friends,don't always believe you hear just because someone says it is a message from God:test it first to see if it really is

The following book excerpt is from pp.16-18 of "In Search of Christian Freedom" by Ray Franz

"If indeed authority has been an ancient enemy of truth,it has also been an ancient enemy of freedom,for truth is a prime liberating source,able to "make one free."When compelled to confront truth in the field of combat,error finds its favorite weapon,and also its ultimate refuge in authority.All too often,the claimed authority has no more genuineness than does the error itself.

No matter how much evidence may be supplied,no matter how much scriptural testimony may be presented,no matter how much logic may be brought to bear on the points discussed in this book,these may all be rejected and discarded by those who place a particular human religious authority as their guide,as the determiner of truth.In fact,with the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses all such evidence and scriptural testimony will be rejected before it is even heard--because authority has decreed for them that they should reject it.Those under the authority are thus robbed of the freedom to decide for themselves whether the information is factual or false,beneficial or detrimental.

And the same is true of all persons who submit to any human religious authority as their supreme arbiter of right and wrong.If they choose to allow that authority to decide for them ,speak for them,think for them,then any alternative argument or evidence advanced has no hope of a fair hearing,for "against authority there is no defense."The authority has no need to respond ,no need to refute,or even to consider the evidence presented;it simply condemns.This is,I believe,the basic issue and unless it is first understood,little else can be undertsood.At least that has proved to be the case in my own experience.

Men can make no greater claim to authority than to claim to speak for God--even more than that--to claim to be his *sole channel of communication* to all mankind.To occupy such a position would be an awesome responsibility indeed,and one that should logically call for the greatest humility on the part of the imperfect humans if they were in fact assigned to fill it.

A fitting analogy might be that of a slave sent forth by a king to deliver a proclamation.If impressed with his own importance,lacking humility,the messenger might feel free to add to the message or make adjustments,while nonetheless insisting that all hearers should accept whatever he presented as a bona fide royal order.If people questioned him on certain points,he might become resentful,seek to awe them with his royal backing in order to override any doubts about the authenticity of his statements.

By contrast,a truly humble messenger would scrupulously avoid any alteration of what came from the royal source.He would not become resentful if asked for proof of full authenticity for what he said,nor would he criticize if some took steps to confirm that the message he presented was delivered just as given,free from embroidery or change.Rather than decry such investigation as an abusive lack of respect for himself(the mere slave),he would accept it,even welcome it,as evidence of the inquirer's concern and deep respect for the will of his master,the Sovereign.

The Watchtower society repeatedly states that its message has life and death importance.The organization claims its message has been sent by God,the supreme Sovereign,for all mankind,with ultimate destruction as the outcome for disobedience.Some other religions take a similar position.

Surely,any claim of such magnitude should never go untested.In fact,the greatness of the claim calls for,not less,but more caution,more careful testing.Simple respect for God should move us,actually compel us,to make sure that the message is genuinely His,free from additions or alterations.The deeper our respect for God,the more conscientious our effort in testing."

I'm not asking Jehovah's Witnesses to question God or Jesus.I'm asking them to question *imperfect men* who make the downright astonishing & remarkably lofty claim to be the "sole channel" of God's.See the difference?If not,then when were the lines blurred for you?According to the WT,to question them demonstrates the same kind of "independent spirit" Adam and Eve demonstrated in the Garden of Eden when they questioned God.The Watchtower,however,isn't God.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Matthew 20:28 & Philippians 2:5-8:Rightly dividing the Word of truth

This is the second blog in a series where I will prove that the trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8,in light of correlating texts,is easily proven not only difficult,but downright impossible.In this blog,we'll explore Philippians 2:5-8 in light of it's correlation with Matthew 20:28.

Scripture # 2:
Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

I think "Son of man" correlates with "form of God" in Philippians.Because,clearly,Christ was born as a man with God as his father.Christ was the Son of God AS a man.Children are the images of their father. Also, "came to serve"(from Matthew) correlates with "made himself nothing and took the form of a servant"(from Philippians).In addition,"gave his life as a ransom for many" from Matthew correlates with "humbled himself to the point of death" from Philippians.If I am right that Matthew 20:28 correlates with Philippians 2,then this proves that Christ as a man was the "form of God",simply enough.And that the humiliation in view from Philippians happened as a rich man who deserved only to BE served becoming poor for us by "serving",as a sinless man who didn't deserve to die choosing to die for us.As opposed to a pre-existing deity becoming a man for us.

Would you agree that "serve and give his life" from Matthew would easily correlate with " taking the form of a servant" and "humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death" from Philippians?Hmm..sounds exactly the same.Would this not then prove that Christ was the "form of God" in fact AS the "Son of man" since Matthew says that it is that MAN,as opposed to a pre-existing God in heaven,who "served and gave his life" as the REAL humiliation in view in Matthew and Philippians?Wouldn't this all go back to Christ being rich and sinless AS A HUMAN BEING who was king and Lord,yet serving and dying for others as if he weren't Lord of them,as if he weren't even sinless?(since it is only sin that leads to death!)Wouldn't all this seem to suggest rather explicitly that Christ as a man was the Son of God,as opposed to Christ as a man was a only a nature that God took on? As opposed to Christ as Son of God actually BEING God?Again,if I'm right about Matthew 20:28 correlating with Philippians 2,then it is proven with zero doubt that Christ was in the form of God as a man and not as the second person of a trinity.And also NOT as Michael the archangel or the Angel of the Lord..that has to be imported INTO all the texts in question.If you choose to argue that Christ is called "son of man" in Matthew 20:28 only AFTER his humiliation in Philippians,then how could you possibly prove this when the humiliation and abasement is precisely communicated as a rich sinless man serving and humbling himself unto death as if he were poor,as if he were criminal,as if he inherited sin like other men?If what I just proposed is the humiliation in view,then why must another be imposed?

Christ was in the "form of God" AS the "Son of man" who was very rich as heir,king and Lord.Yahushua CHOSE to serve and die for others,and that is the only humiliation communicated anywhere.He was a rich man who became poor for us.Not a rich God who became man for us.God or Archangel becoming man for us has to be imported and imposed.The humbling and absement from Philippians is defined as his taking on sin,serving,and suffering in correlating texts.He did this from the starting point of a rich man who knew zero sin,who didn't deserve to serve,suffer,or die.He deserved to be served,to never have to die,and zero suffering as the kind of man he really was(rich,sinless,perfect,Lord).Simple as that.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

2 Corinthians 8:9 & Phil. 2:5-8:Rightly dividing the word of truth

This is the first of a few blogs that will be exploring how other texts in the bible interpret Philippians 2:5-8 FOR us,making it simple to understand that a "hypostatic union" is not only improbable,but imo,impossible if I am right that the texts I will be using positively correlate with Philippians 2.This first blog(with an attached video)in the series deals with 2 Corinthians 8:9 in relation to Philippians.I already have a blog on this particular correlation if you'd like to read it here:

1st blog on 2 Cor. 8:9 in relation to Phil. 2

I wanted to simplify it as much as I could for a video.First,let us just look at the texts.

Philippians 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:6 Who, being in very nature God,(in the form of God would be a better interpretation,sorry)did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

Now you will usually be able to get trinitarians and Arians to admit this correlates explicitly with Philippians 2.However,that would cause a real problem for them.Because they would then have to admit,according to their own interpretation of Philippians,that Christ's "richness" entailed his "pre-existent deity as the second person of a triune God" or as "pre-existing spirit creature."However,2 Corinthians here says that WE,through Christ's poverty "might become rich."To say "well Christ's richness meant as deity,but ours means as children of God" would be positively absurd.Yes,our "richness" within this text is compared to Christ's.So question is..what was the richness in Corinthians,which correlates with "form of God" in Philippians?If it's something we can have,apparently it is that we are "children of God,fellow heirs with Christ" destined for glory.(Rom. 8:16,17)Is that not what Christ also was?Could that not define Christ's "richness?"A child and heir of God,born of God, destined for glory.Absolutely.

As for the "poverty" of Christ in Corinthians,this would correlate with "making himself nothing, taking the form of a servant" from Philippians.How was this accomplished?Well,we've already established that "richness",if it does in fact correlate with "form of God" in Philippians,CANNOT be Christ as true God because we too can have the same richness.So working from that starting point,"taking the form of a servant" and "poverty" would be,not that deity took on human form but that the Son of God as a rich man who was heir to a kingdom,who deserved nothing less than to be served as well as a remarkable exaltation,instead humbled himself all the way to an ignominious,gut-wrenching fate on a cross!He served others humbly ,even dying for them,even though he was king and Lord of them.Yes,though he was rich,he became poor for us!

As James Dunn notes in "Christology in the Making"
"When Paul elsewhere speaks of "grace"(gracious gift,or gracious act)in connection with what Christ has done he was always thinking of his death and resurrection.(see esp. Rom. 5:15,21;Gal. 2:20;Eph. 1:6).Nowhere else does he talk of Christ's "gracious act" as his becoming man."p. 121

In review:

If Christ's "richness" was as "pre-existent deity",then *why and how* are we said to be rich within the same,I repeat same, passage?If you insist on interpreting "richness" differently for Christ than for us,essentially,then on what logical exegetical basis would this make sense within the very same passage?Do you believe(or not) that Christ's "richness" in 2 Corinthians 8:9 correlates with his being in the "form of God" in Philippians?If so,then when scripture is allowed to interpret itself,*how* is "richness" defined if we too can have it?Rich as true God?Or rich as children of God/heirs/future kings?Was Christ a child of God?Was he heir and king?Would it not then make sense that he was rich THAT way,as opposed to "rich" as the "2nd person of a triune essence in heaven"?Within 2 Corinthians 8:9,the "grace of Christ" was his "becoming poor",which would explicitly correlate with "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being found in the likeness of men" from Philippians 2.Agreed? Wouldn't this suggest that, in correlation with 2 Corinthians 8:9, that Philippians 2:5-8 would then be that Christ as a *rich man who was a child of God*(as opposed to a rich pre-existing "true God")humbling himself even to death at the cross,as opposed to God becoming a man?Since the bible always,I repeat always, defines the grace of Christ as his death and resurrection,and never as God becoming a man?

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Does John 16:28 prove that Jesus pre-existed?(An Arian issue)

This blog was inspired by a blog from Ivan,found here:

Ivan's blog on John 16:27-30

I recommend his blog to anyone interested in Christological,Jehovah's Witness,or kingdom of God apologetics.

(John 16:27-30, NASB)

for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.” His disciples said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

Ivan(whose blog inspired this post..thanks Ivan) says "if ‘come into the world’ means to be born, then one would expect this to be first and Jesus being commissioned afterwards. But this is not what Jesus says. He says he first came from God and then came into the world."

And I would say:how could Yahushua come into the world without coming from God to do so?How could he have been "born" without God sending his spirit to impregnate Mary,essentially causing his "word of life"(eternal life from the father) to manifest at the "proper time"?(1 John 1:1,2,5:11,Gal. 4:4)We already know from scripture that anything God wills is always with him and comes from him,instigated by an operation of his miraculous and powerful holy spirit.That is how and why any gift from the father could be said to come forth from Him,and in fact descend.

James 1:17:Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights(NIV)

or as the New Living Translation says:

Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our Father, who created all the lights in the heavens.

What God decrees,harbors,fancies,and intends is with him,spoken forth,and manifest at the proper time.(Gal. 4:4,Eph. 1:10)I really can't think of anything from the father,any gift,any precious surety,more amazing and poignant than the "purpose he set forth in Christ"(Eph. 1:9),"which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."(Col. 1:27)Yahushua knew he was that "gift" that would "come down"(James 1:17),that "true bread from heaven",from youth on as his parents taught him the scriptures and the Spirit he was full of led and taught him fully.(John 3:34)This gift that came from God was Christ's *flesh*.This *Son of man* was of course from God!Where else would it(the bread,or flesh) and he(Yahushua) be from?

John 6:32:Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the *bread from heaven*, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

This "bread" was "flesh" that "came down" from heaven as any gift from God would,as opposed to a spirit that transmigrated.(John 6:51)

Yahushua knew who and what he was,how he was present since before the world even was,as "the mystery hidden for ages and generations" that was "*now* revealed to his saints."(Col. 1:26)The revelation of that mystery was,again,Christ the genuine man in the flesh,not a Godman,not an Angel who became human.(except from both camps,Arian and trinitarian, by inference)The eternal life from the father was a "decree before the ages for our glory"(1 Cor. 2:7)and quite honestly and sincerely the Last Adam(that's a human being who needs no ontologies added,either at the same time or before and after) once manifest.(1 Cor. 15:45,Rom. 5:14,John 1:14)

The father Yah was the reliable source of Messiah Yahushua.In fact,he said to David:

2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.

Messiah came from God.He didn't come forth of his own initiative and make claims that weren't true.(John 14:6)

John 8:42:Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

When Christ said "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world",he was trying to let them know that he was indeed the "Christ,the Son of the Living God."(Matthew 16:16)EXACTLY who he always said he was.He never said "I was the Angel of the LORD" or "I am the same God (in being,not person) as the One who sent me."The revelation that he was the decreed Christ of Yah was and is a truth so important that if one can't or won't accept it,that one will "die in his sin."(John 8:24)That was the purpose and heart of the texts in question.Because:

2 John 1:7:Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Yahushua wanted them to know that he was that "flesh" from heaven.The Messiah in the flesh,a true human being,from God himself,sent to save the world.

Ivan further says:"Another passage that points to a similar concept of being with God but sent to the world is John 17:18 (ESV):

As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world

It is plain that Jesus “sent them,” that is, his disciples, “into the world” in a person-to-person correlation. Yet, Jesus compares this sending to how the Father sent him “into the world.” Jesus’ sending must also have been a person-to-person correspondence."

To which I say:How did Yahushua send his disciples into the world?By letting them know of their divine commission and the work that needed(and still needs) to be done.Why would a pre-existence spring into view (except by presupposition perhaps)in order for God to have "person-to-person" correspondence with his own Son?Are we forgetting that "no one knows the Father except the Son"?(Matt. 11:27)And how do people come to "know" God?Well,by his Spirit.And who was full of that more exceptionally,intimately,and wholly than any other?Yahushua,of course,who was given the Spirit of his loving father generously "without limit."(John.3:34)I would certainly consider that "person to person" correspondence.

When Yahushua said "I am leaving the world again and going to the Father",even though it is the opposite of coming from the father,he is communicating that he is returning to the place from which he originated.He didn't come of his own initiative or from any unreliable source,but from the faithful and true Shema's One God Himself!God is the source and sender and father of the one he made to be Lord and king of the world,Yahushua.(Matt. 28:18,Acts 2:36)Christ was a gift of life,true bread from heaven,for the world who would exercise faith,poignantly and surely from Yahuwah,no other source.:)

When the disciples said "you are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech",the word for "figure of speech" is "paroimia",defined as an enigmatical or fictitious illustration on e-sword.(easily downloadable free bible study software)So basically all the disciples were saying was "what you have said is true,as opposed to false.You are definitely who you say you are.We believe you.You haven't spoken in another enigmatic illustration." NOT,and as opposed to, "You were a spirit entity who transmigrated into a womb to become a man.What you've said is clear in that you were the Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament who now stands before us as a human being!"That notion has to be read INTO the texts.The Greek word for "plainly" means "frankly" or "bluntly."Yahushua could say "frankly" and "bluntly" that he came from God without having to mean "I was a spirit who did."Because,again,how could Yahushua come into the world without coming *from God* to do so?His origin was from no other place!If it were,then he would be a false Messiah.We know that isn't an option.

Further,John writes:

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” 31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?"

Do you think Yahushua was asking them if they now believed he pre-existed or if they now knew for certain that he was the Christ of Yah?To "know all things" means Christ was full of the spirit of Yah,truly "from God" as the prophesied Messiah to give life to the world,not that he existed for millenniums as another ontology.Again,I think the whole point is that he wasn't a false Messiah from some source other than Yah.

Ivan noted on his blog:

"Even preeminent British scholar James Dunn whom has a tendency to read pre-existence out of the New Testament says,

“Linked with the Father-Son theme is the regularly expressed conviction of his own pre-existence—of a prior existence in heaven with the Father (6.62; 8.38; 10.36; 17.5), of his descent from heaven (3.13; 6.33, 38, 41f., 50f., 58), of his coming from God (3.31; 8.42; (13.3); 16:27f.; 17:8) into the world (3.19; 9.3; 10.36; 12.46; 16.28; 18.37). The climax is probably reached in the most powerful of the ‘I am’ sayings, where Jesus’ claim to pre-existence achieves its most absolute expression—‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (8.58).”- Christology in the Making, pg. 57, 2nd edition."

My response to this point:

Dunn said in his foreword that since his writing of the "Christology" book that his "understanding of the beginnings of Christology has itself developed and become clarified"(xxvi) and that "it becomes clear from John's Gospel",to a degree he hadn't appreciated when he wrote "Christology",that the "main issue of that period was monotheism."(xxviii)And though he doesn't mention John ch. 16 specifically in his foreword,I am left to assume(and you can disagree) that if he thinks the Johannine Christ is NOT an incarnation of a pre-existing "Son of God",then he doesn't think any text of John would solidly support such a thought.He says:

"It would be better to speak of the Johannine Christ as the incarnation of GOD,as God making himself known in human flesh,*not as the incarnation of the Son of God(which seems to be saying something other.)*"(xxviii Foreword to 2nd edition of "Christology in the Making" by James D.G. Dunn)

and also:

"Christ was the incarnate Logos,a self-manifestation of God,the One God insofar as he could make himself known in human flesh.--not the incarnation of a divine power other than God.Christianity was still monotheistic;the only difference was the belief that this God had manifested himself in and as human flesh;this Jesus now provided a definitive 'window' into the One God;he was (and is) "God" as the self-manifestation of God,not as one somehow other than God.".(xxx foreword to 2nd edition of "Christology in the Making" by James D.G. Dunn)

In other words,Christ was the father(and the father's own self-revelation) incarnate in human flesh,not a pre-existing Angel or "Son of God" incarnate in human flesh.And I would agree.And,no,just in case there be any misunderstandings,that point is NOT advocating a Modalist position.It's advocating God the father IN his Son,a separate "being" and individual,*through* whom he made himself known as fully as an infinite, holy, and unseeable God possibly could.(2 Cor. 5:19,Col. 2:9)

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

James Dunn on 1 Corinthians 10:4

"It is hardly likely that Paul intended to identify Christ as the wilderness rock in any literal sense.So "the rock was Christ" must denote some sort of allegorical identification:The rock *represents* Christ in some way;as water from the rock,so spiritual drink from Christ.But is it an allegory of the realities *then* operative,or something more in the line of a *typological* allegory of the spiritual realities now experienced by the Corinthians?The latter seems the more probable,not least because Paul HIMSELF describes the whole affair as *types* and as happening to the Israelites *typologically* in verses 6 and 11.In verses 1-2 it is fairly obvious that the phrase "baptized into Moses" has been modelled on the more familiar Pauline formulation,"baptized into Christ"(Rom. 6:3,1 Cor. 12:13,Gal. 3:27):the passage "through the sea" and "under the cloud" simply provided a typological parallel to the event of becoming a member of Christ--hence "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" modelled on "baptized into Christ in the Spirit"(1 Cor. 12:13).The Israelites can be said to have been "baptized" only as a reflection backwards into the Exodus narrative of what the Corinthians had experienced;and can be said to have been "baptized into Moses" only because Moses served as the typological counterpart of Christ.Similarly with the latter half of the parallel(verses 3-4):the manna from heaven and the water from the rock were simply types of the spiritual sustenance received by Christians from Christ.In the first half of the midrash it was unnecessary to identify Moses as the type of Christ--that would have been obvious anyway,and the "baptized into Moses" rendered a specific identification superfluous.In the latter half however,the type of Christ is less obvious.So to clarify his exegesis Paul simply adds the interpretive note, "the rock was Christ"--that is,to understand the full message of those wilderness narratives in their application to the situation of the Corinthians.(verses 6,11)Paul's readers should see the rock then as equivalent to Christ now.In other words,Paul says to his readers:if you compare yourselves to the Israelites you will see what peril you are in.They experienced the equivalent of what we have experienced:they went through what we call a baptism;they enjoyed what we call "spiritual food"--you only need to equate Moses with Christ(so "baptized into Moses")and the rock with Christ to see how close the parallel is to your situation--and yet look what happened to them(verses 5,9)"These things have become types of,or for you"(verse 6);they "happened to the Israelites typologically,but were written down for our instruction"(verse 11)--so be warned!

Paul then may indeed have been aware of Philo's identification of the rock with wisdom,or at least of Alexandrian Judaism's readiness to interpret the events of the exodus and wilderness wanderings allegorically.But where Philo used the historical narrative as a picture of the more timeless(Platonic) encounter between God and man,Paul used it as a picture of the eschatological realities that now pertain since the coming of Christ.In this typological interpretation it is not actually implied nor does it follow that Paul intended to identify Christ with Wisdom(since the rock=Wisdom,therefore Christ=rock=Wisdom).Nor does it follow that Christ was thought of as having existed at the time of the wilderness wanderings.All we can safely say is that the allegorical interpretation of Philo(or of Alexandrian Judaism) may well have prompted the more typological interpretation of Paul:as rock=Wisdom in Alexandrian allegory,so rock=Christ in Christian typology.In short,it is not sufficiently probable that 1 Cor. 10:4 refers to Christ as preexistent for us to make anything of it in our inquiry."

from "Christology in the Making" by James D.G Dunn pp. 183-184.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Resurrection glory

I love the way Brad(humanityofjesus on youtube) teaches.Very humbly,sincerely,and soundly.I only hope Yahushua by the spirit will work though him to compel others to the true God and the true Son of God.It doesn't happen overnight that seeds grow,but they can and do.:)The truth is so simple,beautiful and important.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Faithful and Discreet Slave

Matthew 24:45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 47 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

The Watchtower "Insight" publication says:

"Those forming the Christian congregation are referred to by the apostle Paul as “members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19; 1Ti 3:15), and the same apostle shows that ‘faithful stewardship’ among such household members involved the dispensing of spiritual truths on which those becoming believers would ‘feed.’ (1Co 3:2, 5; 4:1, 2; compare Mt 4:4.)Whereas this(food dispension) was a prime responsibility of those appointed as ‘shepherds’ of the flock (1Pe 5:1-3), the apostle Peter shows that such stewardship of the divine truths was actually committed to all the ‘chosen ones,’ all the spirit-anointed ones, of the Christian congregation. (1Pe 1:1, 2; 4:10, 11)"(Insight vol. 1 under "faithful and discreet slave")

So,awesomely enough,the WT is willing to admit that in the first century,because they believe that at that time ALL true Christians were anointed,that this parable is in application to every member within the congregations,feeding one another as well as getting fed.They articulate this by saying further:

"The entire anointed Christian congregation was to serve in a united stewardship, dispensing such truths. At the same time the individual members making up such composite body, or the “domestics” making up the “house” of God (Mt 24:45; Heb 3:6; Eph 2:19), would also be recipients of the “food” dispensed. (Heb 5:11-14; compare 1Co 12:12, 19-27.)"

The WT admits this parable applies to the entire body of Christ,and thus everyone who was present in the congregations(the home fellowships) of the 1st century fulfilled it.Today,however, they inexplicably believe only a few "chosen ones",literally only thousands of people within their organization itself,fulfill it,and especially those in their "governing body."

We actually have a decent starting point because at least the WT admits that the "household" of God are anointed Christians.It's just entirely too bad that they think most Christians aren't spirit anointed at all!Therefore,they have to equivocate as they expand the household of God to include Christians who aren't in Christ at all to justify their unique application of this parable.The REAL problem with this is that the New Testament scriptures don't speak of anyone who is supposed to be Christian as actually being outside the body of Christ,which IS "God's household."In other words,to say there's a group distinct from the body of Christ within the household of God is scripturally baseless.When there are people progressing to true Christianity,once they have decided to exercise faith in the Messiah,then they need to live in him as their ark and truth,as their sole mediator and way to eternal life.(Jn. 14:6,1 Tim. 2:5)They receive the SAME reward(life in Christ alone) as those who are more mature in the faith.(Matt. 10:40-42)Essentially,fulfilling the parable along with every professed believer because they become slaves for Christ who,hopefully,are faithful and discreet ones.

Let's see,further, who scripture actually identifies as "God's household" to get a proper understanding of Matt. 24:45.Scripture says:

1 Peter 2:5:you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Hebrews 3:6:Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.

The WT,of course,claim these texts apply to all Christians in the 1st century and VERY FEW today.This is because they believe the only true Christians are Jehovah's Witnesses,and most of them are of a class that are *outside* the body of Christ.This has been determined by their leaders by a clever misuse of texts like John 10:16 and Luke 12:32.Even though common sense as well as the bible itself makes it clear the "other sheep" are Gentiles(while the little flock are Jews) & that ALL ,quite frankly, share in the blessings of the body of Christ.(Eph. 2:11-22 expounds on the two groups)It would seem the WT has a different application for this parable from the 1st century to now.THEN,it was "all the Christians" feeding one another and being fed.Now it's just a few Christians(of a little flock anointed class,particularly privileged) feeding those who are not anointed at all(the less privileged).

How can the discreet slave of the WT feed God's household if,according to scripture,God's household is explicitly identified as the body of Christ?In other words,if it is the body of Christ that feeds those who aren't in it at the "proper time"(according to Watchtower theology),then who feeds the household(the body of Christ) itself?I'm sure JW's would say "Christ does" but according to this parable,faithful stewards OF Christ do.(with Christ as sole leader of every true believer of course)Since the governing body are ALSO "God's household" as members of Christ's body,then what faithful and wise servant feeds them in fulfillment of the parable?Also,if one says "the governing body of the JW's" feeds the *rest* of Christ's body,then on what scriptural basis can this be dogmatically established clearly & scripturally,while also asserting that the anointed fed ones fulfill the parable too even as they accomplish the EXACT SAME WORK as the "other sheep"?But that the "other sheep" somehow just don't fulfill it at all?It seems more to be a baseless assertion than a solid truth.If the WT magazines and such are your "food at the proper time",then how in the world did the Christians in the 1st century ever get properly nourished?

God in these last days has spoken to us through his SON.(Heb. 1:2)We have the holy scriptures and nothing else is essential,nothing else is prophesied to be necessary food for salvation.Only the truth found in Christ.I suppose that's why men who make claims as lofty as the governing body do always give themselves away with something,like false date setting and a bizarre separation of Christians into "classes."Yahushua is being ignored and an institution/organization "arrangement" and "food" is being hailed as something that's necessary for salvation.It's really blasphemous considering the sufficiency of Yahushua,the blemishless Lamb,eternal life from the Father himself.

I guess one of my beefs here is the fact that if you raise any objections to JW's about their unwarranted application of this parable,you will be met with claims like :

"but this parable can't be applied to all Christians individually because it's only for those set OVER the household."

This objection will not hold up at all if you read the WT publications themselves where they admit,again,about 1st century Christians,that "the entire anointed Christian congregation was to serve in a united stewardship, dispensing such truths. At the same time the individual members making up such composite body, or the “domestics” making up the “house” of God,would also be recipients of the “food” dispensed."So I guess my question is:

WHY,if in the 1st century every Christian in the congregations fulfilled this parable,even if they weren't spiritual leaders or elders or appointed in any position of oversight at all,can't this also be true of the parable today?OR,reworded:How can you say that every Christian can't possibly meet the requirements of this parable today because not every Christian is in a position of oversight if,according to the WT,all Christians used to fulfill this parable in the past regardless of not being appointed as leaders of any kind?Where is the justice in changing the parable's application at all?Wouldn't that be not only inconsistent,but peculiar and sly even?

Please keep in mind,JW's,that most of those claiming to be in the body of Christ within the WT organization itself are being fed by the governing body,even as the governing body claims that those not in the governing body yet in the body of Christ who are anointed JW's *also* fulfill this parable.So,again,why is it that the "other sheep" aren't fulfilling the parable as well since they are doing the **exact same** "faithful and discreet" work as the rest of the anointed JW's who claim to be in Christ who are outside the governing body itself?We have some real inconsistencies going on in WT theological matters!

This parable,clearly,is about those within the body of Christ tending carefully,faithfully,and discreetly to one another,handling the word of truth aright.If one MUST say it's in application solely to some spiritual leaders or teachers of the church,then why would that be "the governing body of JW's" as opposed to all the elders and servants appointed in the humble fellowships of the first century and today?In fact,where was the governing body in the 1st century home fellowships?Where was the location where they convened?Where is the evidence that any governing body privately,in closed chambers,concocted the "food" for all the fellowships at "the proper time?"Where are the rules by which the members could discreetly be appointed?Since there are detailed regulations for the appointment of elders and the like,it would only make sense that there would likewise be for the governing body that supposedly(according to the WT alone) dictated every affair of every congregation.It's absence in the epistles would be dumbfounding were it a prevailing reality.And absent it is!

Please keep in mind that regardless of the application of who the stewards are in Matthew 24:45,these stewards are feeding the body of Christ(identified in scripture as God's household befitting the parable) as opposed to people kept FROM the body of Christ by an manmade organization.

How can slaves of Christ be faithful and discreet?

Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Matthew 7:24 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Luke 16:10 Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

2 Tim. 2:15:Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

As Christians,we all have the responsibility to slave for Christ as faithfully and discreetly as possible.

A bible commentary says about this parable:

"The "servant" is there called a "steward", for such a servant is meant; and a name that is very proper for the apostles and ministers of the word, who are stewards of the mysteries of Christ, and of the manifold grace of God; and whose characters are, that they are "faithful": for this is required in stewards, that they be faithful to the trust reposed in them; as ministers are, when they preach the pure Gospel of Christ, and the whole of it; conceal no part, nor keep anything of it; seek not to please men, but God; neither seek their own things, their ease, honour, and profit, but the glory of God, the honour of Christ, and the good of souls; and abide by the truths, cause, and interest of a Redeemer, at all hazards. And they are "wise", who know and are well instructed in divine things; who make Christ the main subject of their ministry; who improve their talents and time for their master's use, and the advantage of those that are under their care; who seek for, and deliver acceptable words and matter; and manage their whole trust, so as to be able to give in a good account of their stewardship another day. The post that such a person is put in, and the work he is to do, follow:" ~Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Scripture enlightens:

Proverbs 14:35 A king delights in a wise servant, but a shameful servant incurs his wrath.

Proverbs 28:20 A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.

Hmm..looks like we better,as believers,be wise and faithful slaves.:)(Rom. 6:22,Eph. 6:6,Col. 3:24)For to do so entails an inheritance like no other,yes,eternal life!!Found in Christ alone,not an organization.