Because documentation is needed.
Even C.T. Russell said Michael is not Christ.
- Thread starter imJRR
- Start date
Bonnie
Super Member
deleted
The point is when is there documentation that Jesus existed and that is only after the Word became flesh. The jws say there was no God the Son and instead say there was only a Son of God and thus I am on topic.
That may be your point, but THE point is that Jesus - God the Son - the Word (Who is eternal) - is God come in the flesh.
That is how it applies to JWs.
In terms of 'Son of God', that title is given to Jesus many times. John 3:16 is probably the most familiar reference.
Anyway, the JWs - as with they are with MANY other things - have this wrong.
Unfortunately and horribly tragically, getting this wrong separates them from God, makes them guilty of having a false Jesus Christ, a false message of salvation, and spiritual liars, deceivers and abusers of millions.
That is how it applies to JWs.
In terms of 'Son of God', that title is given to Jesus many times. John 3:16 is probably the most familiar reference.
Anyway, the JWs - as with they are with MANY other things - have this wrong.
Unfortunately and horribly tragically, getting this wrong separates them from God, makes them guilty of having a false Jesus Christ, a false message of salvation, and spiritual liars, deceivers and abusers of millions.
Last edited:
Are you saying the jws say the Word is God came in the flesh?
What I said is what I said, and I explained how it applies to JWs. I believe that explanation to be quite clear and understandable.
The jws do not believe Jesus is God through the Word or in any other way.
No one has documented there was a Son before the Word became flesh. As a matter of fact someone just tried to make a point by saying there is no documentation of the Father until the Son was manifested. Really and that is because until there was Jesus the Son there was just God and the only documentation of there being God the Father is about 2,000 or so years ago when the Word became flesh and there was a Son named Jesus.
That is correct, and this is a JW forum, and my post is concerning the beliefs and teachings of the JWs.
I was answering your post above where you said this is how it applies to jws that Jesus is God come in the flesh.
eve - Just so you know, Kade is not a JW, and was asked to post on another forum.
Sorry for not being clear - From what I have read of your posts, you do not hold to JW beliefs. In believing that Jesus is Michael, Kade does, at least partially; although I don't think he fully identifies with JWs. My post to you was an attempt to explain that - in order for there to be clarity on the forum and this thread - comparing Christian beliefs with JW beliefs; and focusing in particular on the fact that the founder of the JWs declared that Michael is not Christ - that was the reason for request to move.
Are you trying to say that Jesus is referred to as the Son before the Word became flesh at John 3:16? You do know humans are talking there and since he was only known to the humans as the Son and not the Word, they have to refer to him as the Son there and not the Word? And at vs 17 it says he sent his Son into the world and not to the world After the Word became flesh and was Jesus and thus was God's Son he was sent into the world to save it and not condemn it. Into and to have different meanings.
I'm not "trying" to say anything. Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, the Savior.
No he was sent into the world and not to the world. If I sent you to the store, that means I sent you from a place like home to the store, but if I sent you into the store that means we are already there and I sent you into the store. Since it says Jesus was sent into the world and not to the world that means he was already there or was the Son on earth who was sent into the world.
And what I posted proves he was sent into the world as Jesus after the Word became flesh and was not sent to the world from heaven as Jesus. You have to prove your point like I did.
LOL! Your post hasn't actually "proven" anything; it is only a mere statement of what you believe. It is also, very much, a completely meaningless and irrelevant side-tracking from the subject of the thread. It doesn't matter what words are used for Him - Jesus, the Word, Immanuel, Lamb of God, Lord, King of Kings, Light of the world, Lord of all, Mediator, Supreme Creator of all, the Door, the Way, the Truth, the Resurrection and the Life, the Almighty One, the Alpha and Omega, the Good Shepherd, Faithful and True, Bread of Life, Chief Cornerstone, Author and Perfecter of Faith, Jesus Christ - That Person whom the New Testament talks about was and is God come in the flesh, the Savior.
And you do not attempt to prove your point Also in the OT Jesus not mentioned. If he was God and is so prominent why would God leave him out and only mention him in the NT?