Response #2 to a Jehovah's Witness-Supportive Person

OK...Edward, you say I assume you are a Jehovah's Witness...are you? If not then you hold the same views and find it necessary to go to other blogs defending them...so whether you are one or not you hold the same incorrect view.

You are not sure which post I'm referring to? Since you responded to it below I take it you figured it out...of course I was responding to your comments from 9 Dec to my post entitled "Is Jesus Only Begotten?" I thought that was pretty obvious...

For those joining in...here is what Edward said:

"Also, why do you assume that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you simply blindly labeling?As to erroneous views of John 3:16... It does appear that the Witnesses have the correct view as it says that God gave his only begotten son. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That is the KJV so no translational arguments here."

OK...I think you missed my whole point...did you read my post? Sounds like you didn't really understand. "Only begotten" in the Greek is monogenes...which literally means "one of a kind"- and that's why it's interpreted as unique by some exegetes. It does NOT mean that Jesus was created by Jehovah...you are assuming the english meaning onto a word that God inspired in Greek...

You said, "JWs believe that God gave his son. Jehovah God gave his son, Jesus. Died for us. So that we believe in him we get life. The fact that the term son is used there indicated that the ones to whom he was speaking would understand the father/son relationship." No arguments from me...Jesus is the eternal Son...

Then you said, "So what was true of his listeners would be true of him and [h]is father. What we have is God and the fact that he loved the world of mankind. And that there was also a son. He gave this son as a sacrifice. Those that believe in him have everlasting life. JWs believe that. God did not give himself. The term son indicates that he is younger and proceeded from his Father, who would be God. If the son was not created, then the term brother would have been used."

Son doesn't always indicate younger...and proceeded from doesn't mean created. Your reasoning won't hold up if you continue on in this discussion. The difference is that JWs deny the deity of the Son of God...they deny the Trinity...and obviously you do too.

I noticed you ignored my comments on Heb 11:17 which proves that the word monogenes" (translated only begotten) doesn't mean first created child as you assume...comments?

OK...I also noticed you ignored my other question...so here's your challenge once again. You ignored it in my last post and ignored the exegesis of the verse that I did...if you really have this verse down and can show me that Jesus is NOT God then I'll concede. The big question for the second time...

Who is referred to in Revelation 1:8- "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Who is the "Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end"? This person says he is the Lord and is the Almighty, right? This is Jehovah, right? Looking forward to your reply!

P.S Your comments on the following blogs sure makes you sound like a Jehovah's Witness...are you just a great admirer that feels the need to defend their beliefs? If you're not a Jehovah's Witness then I think I'm going to declare myself to be the President of the United States!

http://governingbodyletters.blogspot.com/2008/11/jehovahs-witnesses-vote-in-ghana.html

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/12/jehovahs-witnesses-child-abuse.html

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2008/10/witnessing-to-jehovahs-witnesses.html

http://stuffofinteresttojws.blogspot.com/2008/10/jehovahs-witnesses-relief-center-in.html

http://spiritualbrother.blogspot.com/