AboutBrenda Martin Expertise I have been one of Jehovah`s Witneses now for over 30 years, in those years I have brought up 4 children, teaching each of them the bible.Being one of Jehovah`s Witnesses has helped me cope with my Epilepsy and bring up a daughter with learning difficulties.I have conducted bible studies with people from nearly every denomination i.e. Muslim. Having used the bible all these years to answer peoples questions, I feel I am qualified to give any answer regarding Jehovah`s Witnesses and the bible.
Experience My experience has been one of attending bible lectures 5 times a week,taking part in these lectures in front of an audience and being with thousands of J.W. at conventions where I have seen the bible at work in peoples lives.It is truly a miracle when you see thousands of people meeting together and not one policeman needed, and not even a piece of litter in sight.It is like another world.
Question Q-In harmony with your doctrine, is it understood that Jehovah is First in All things and the Son is First in All other things?
And I asked you before why not add [Other] in Col 1:18.
If you look at it closely by adding other in col1:18 it will surely be in harmony with your doctrine.
you answered: Obviously the Greek word “panta” isn’t used in this verse, as Jesus has become “first in all things” not “all other things”
(You are correct panta isn't used in that verse. The word used is pasin. **pasin used 88times in Wes/Hort Greek). But that is not the point here.
Before Jesus received the name that is above all [[õðåñ (hoop-er') = above (over) ðáí (pan)/ (pas) = every/all]] NWT renders it "above every" in philippians2:9(Wes/Hort Greek) õðåñ ðáí {ooper pan}. I do not see panta here but then again in the NWT [Other] is inserted. The point here is not to try and put the Son's name above the Father. By all means that is not the case. I am very aware that the Father’s name is above the Son and above all for that matter. The point here is the insertion of the word [Other] and your reasoning behind it. In regards to col1:18 you stated: obviously the Greek word panta is not used. For that reason you justify why the word [Other] was not inserted. The flip side of the coin is that NWT justifies the insertion of [other] in phil2:9 regardless of the absence of the Wes/Hort Greek word pan'ta.
Now going back to col 1:18 the first in all things.
And your point was:
[[[ Jesus was the FIRST ever to be resurrected to everlasting life.
He was the FIRST to receive a resurrection “in the spirit,” to life in heaven.
He was the FIRST to be given a higher form of life and a higher position than that which he had held in the heavens prior to coming to earth.
He was the FIRST to be granted immortality and incorruption, which no creature in the flesh can have
He was FIRST to be made “higher than the heavens,” second only to Jehovah God in the universe. (Heb 7:26; 1Ti 6:14-16; Php 2:9-11; Ac 2:34; 1Co 15:27). ]]]
I do agree with some of the things you said above. But it seems like you are trying to tell me "The First" in regards to Christ is only valid after his resurrection. But let's think about this in harmony with your doctrine. The Son is the Firstbegotten Son, The Firstborn/Beginning of all creation, and this is all before receiving a glorious name that is above all " and ofcourse with the exception of the Father". With that in mind don’t you believe that the WORD who was bought forth as in labor in pains {NWT} from time indefinitely was installed in place to be the First for the beginning of all creation who was with GOD and the WORD is a God? The Son was already the First in many aspects not only after his resurrection but also before the WORD came in the flesh. And you are trying to justify that the Son receives recognition as the First after his resurrection. That is not what the bible shows me. Some of the things you mentioned are questionable for instance:
[[[[He was the FIRST to receive a resurrection “in the spirit,” to life in heaven.]]]]
Christ was resurrected in the flesh and he states: Luke 24:39 ………because a spirit does not have flesh and bones. 1 John 4:2….. Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with GOD.
He was resurrected by the spirit of his Father, Romans 8:11. The same temple that was destroyed, in 3 days was raised back up John 2:19-21.
Not that he resurrected in the spirit. Let’s think about all the power that Christ revealed to his disciples. When the Jews were about to stone Christ he walked in the midst of them. And the Jews did not even realized that he was gone. (the presence of Christ was no longer in their sight) What about when Christ was transfigured before Peter, James and John. Mark 9:2-8. The point here is that we don’t know the extent of the power. It could very well be that the only difference between the temple that was raised on the 3rd day and his life in the flesh is receiving a glorious name and glory above all. John 17:5(NWT) so now you Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. (THE WORD). This verse contradicts your remark when you stated: He was the FIRST to be given a higher form of life and a higher position than that which he had held in the heavens prior to coming to earth. The glory that he receives is the NAME above the kingdom on earth with the approval of his Father. That is the only difference between his glory before and after resurrection.
I can not recall but at what point was Jesus not allowed to be touched because he has not yet returned to the Father? Was it because he was being transformed or purified? Since flesh and bones can not enter the heavens. In this case I will agree. But not that he was resurrected in the spirit!
Will continue
Thanks for your time
V/R Luis
Answer Hi Luis, Before I answer your questions I must ask; how is it you know so much about JW's, did you used to be one?
Also I must add, I was answering your questions to help YOU, I am not in need of clarification of the beliefs I have held for over 30 years,so I will happily answer your questions but I wll not get into a discussion defending what I know to be correct.
If you choose to find fault or nit pick JW's beliefs that is up to you, but I will not be a party to it.
This is not intended to offend, just clarify, if I have the wrong view of your motives, please feel free to correct me.
Brenda
-----------
Here are the answers to your quesitons--
“JEHOVAH IS FIRST IN ALL THINGS AND THE SON IS FIRST IN ALL OTHER THINGS??
Jehovah is first by virtue of who he is, the Almighty Creator, Jesus has been the first in many things, as I mentioned in my last post.
"I ASKED YOU BEFORE WHY NOT ADD [OTHER] IN COL 1:18."
And I gave my answer, I have no desire to repeat it.
"LET'S THINK ABOUT THIS IN HARMONY WITH YOUR DOCTRINE."
No thanks, I am not in need of clarification of my beliefs.
"SOME OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED ARE QUESTIONABLE"
In your opinion perhaps, but most certainly not in mine.
"AT WHAT POINT WAS JESUS NOT ALLOWED TO BE TOUCHED BECAUSE HE HAS NOT YET RETURNED TO THE FATHER?? "
John 20:17, RS: “Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Mary Magdalene was greatly disturbed that, by his death Jesus had left his followers. When she saw him in his materialized body after his resurrection, she clung to Jesus as if she were about to lose him and never see him again. Jesus’ statement would work to correct her misunderstanding of the situation, showing her that she did not have to clutch him fearfully as if to prevent his vanishing. In time he would ascend to heaven and from there send the holy spirit to help and strengthen his disciples.
The New World Translation appropriately presents Jesus as saying to Mary: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”—John 20:17.
"NOT RESURRECTED IN THE SPIRIT!!"
As the apostle Peter later proclaimed, “this Jesus God resurrected.” (Acts 2:32) Jesus was not raised as a human though. He had said: “The bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:51) Taking his flesh back would nullify that sacrifice. So Jesus was “put to death in the flesh, but . . . made alive in the spirit.” (1 Peter 3:18)
Prior to his coming to earth God’s Son had lived as a spirit in heaven along with his Father and the angels. (John 1:1, 14) After Jesus was put to death, he was to go back to heaven, he himself asking to be ‘glorified alongside his Father with the glory he had before the world was.’—John 17:5.
That being so, would God need to resurrect Jesus’ human body of flesh, bones and blood? No, for Jesus was to go to heaven. Is it not understandable, then, that the apostle Peter said that Jesus was ‘put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit’?—1 Pet. 3:18.
But of course you are entitled to believe what you want; I will stick to what the bible teaches.
