There was nothing we could have said but simply sow the seed, now prayer is needed so that the Holy Spirit may continue to nurture and guide him, so that he may bear fruit.
1 Like
I have to ask, are you a sister , or a brother @sryu98 and welcome to the forum.
J.
I am a brother in Christ
Right, henceforth I shall call you achi, fellow brothers eis/into Messiah Yeshua.
J.
1 Like
Love these words. And you write really well.
I had a thought of what it means to me: knowledge of the truth that sets one free.
But heres what I got on ai’s summary 
Binding the conscience" refers to the act of constraining a person’s inner moral judgment, often by imposing extra-biblical rules or personal convictions as divine commands. Biblically and theoretically, only Scripture holds the authority to bind the conscience, while human traditions or church laws cannot do so absolutely
John 17:26
King James Version
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
You said-
through his 1 real religion and the true followers=Jehovah
And how have you, “the true follower”, done this?
And what does that look like?
Just as Jesus( Rev 1:5) is Jehovah’s #1 witness. His followers are Jehovah’s witnesses as well, just like the Israelite religion used to be his witnesses.( Isaiah 43:10-Isaiah 44:8
He showed us that 3 days ago Peter.
So same question? What does that require one to do as a witness? Or Israelite …Specifically what things do you do that make you right with God that other will regret doing or knowing?
So back to the Topic-
Please express your answers with scripture references before you elaborate. Why the below is true of false?
Some people argue the Holy Ghost is not the distinct “third person” of the Trinity, but rather the shared spirit or presence of the Father and Son, often focusing on a “binitarian” view or the “oneness” theology where God acts in different roles. This perspective emphasizes that the Spirit is the “breath” of God, not a separate, individual entity.
Reasons for your view and what Scriptures prove it?
- Spirit of Jesus/Father: Many argue the Holy Ghost is the “spirit of truth” or the “helper” that Jesus sends, making it the presence of Christ rather than a distinct third person.
- Focus on Relationship: Some believe the Trinity is best understood through the relationship between the Father and Son, with the Spirit acting as the bond of love between them.
- Biblical Interpretation: Certain interpretations of scriptures focus heavily on the Father and Son as the primary, visible manifestations of God, while the Spirit is seen as the “power” or “influence” of God at work.
A JW strives with whole, heart, soul, and strength to live by every utterance from God.( barring certain leviticus mosaic laws that were done away with) We are taught Every utterance from God, it never stops. We carry on the work Jesus started-Preaching the good news of Gods kingdom, it does not stop until the end.-Luke 10–Acts 20:20)
Your zeal to live by every utterance of God and to preach continually is not in question. But zeal does not settle truth. As Paul the Apostle makes clear, one may have zeal for God and yet be mistaken at the very center.
You say you follow every utterance of God, yet the question is whether you are receiving what God has most fully uttered. God has spoken in his Son. To claim fidelity to every word while redefining who the Son is places you in tension with the very revelation you claim to uphold.
You appeal to the mission in Luke and Acts, but what exactly did they preach? Not merely the kingdom in abstraction, but Christ himself, crucified and risen. The apostles did not separate the message of the kingdom from the identity of the King. They proclaimed who Jesus is, not only what he does, and this is grasp that holds you.
If Jesus is not truly and fully God, then the message you are carrying forward is not the same message the apostles carried. For Scripture does not present Christ as a secondary or lesser being, but as one who shares the very identity and authority of God. If that is denied, then the foundation of the message has already shifted.
You speak of obedience, endurance, and proclamation. But none of these can correct a misdefined Christ. One may be disciplined, consistent, and sincere, and yet still proclaim a message that is not the gospel.
So the issue is not how fully you strive, but what you are striving in.
If you hold to a “duality” that separates Jesus from the full identity of God, then you have not preserved biblical monotheism. You have altered it. Scripture does not present two beings, one supreme and one lesser. It presents one God, and within that unity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, each fully sharing in the divine nature.
So it ultimately comes down to, are you proclaiming the same Christ the apostles proclaimed, or a reduced one who fits within a framework imposed on the text? Because if the Christ is reduced, the gospel is changed, and no amount of zeal can make that right.
This is why the matter is so serious, because it is possible to speak of God, to work for God, and yet miss him in the very place he has made himself known. Do not go down the path and become like those who cry out Lord Lord only to be not recognized and rejected by him.
Then believe Paul–1Cor 8:5-6–Warns of many false gods then names only the Father as God. Because its truth.
Jesus didn’t do all the powerful works while on Earth, God did through him=Acts 2:22
@Servant1, according to your avatar, you are a servant. Who do you serve?
Let’s look at 2 Corinthians 4:4 in its context:
2Co 4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.
2Co 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2Co 4:5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.
A word study of the New Testament for the use of the word “God” reveals that it is used in most instances for God the Father, while the word “Lord” or “Jehovah” is used for Jesus.
You are right that the word “god” is used for Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4, but the prepositional phrase right after it limits its meaning to the god that the false religions worship, including the JWs, who is Satan.
The Gospel of John clearly identifies the “Word,” Jesus, as one with the Father and yet distinct from him. We will all stand before God someday and will have to give account for our false beliefs. How will he treat you for yours?
The Word at John 1:1 got the same exact word( Theos=god in that scenario when more than 1 is being called God and god) as satan gets at 2 Cor 4:4 while the true God is called Ho Theos=The God. If the Word were God he would have been called Ho theos. Plus in simple English your John 1:1 2nd line reads, if the Word were God= And God( Word) was with God—how many Gods is that?
How do you preach the good news of the kingdom?
What is the story line…if you will?
What is the good news?
I will start a thread if they allow it. I did-Theology thread.
Joh 1:1 In Ἐν [the] beginning ἀρχῇ was ἦν the ὁ Word, Λόγος, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος was ἦν with πρὸς - τὸν God, Θεόν, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος. was ἦν God. Θεὸς
Joh 1:2 He Οὗτος was ἦν in ἐν [the] beginning ἀρχῇ with πρὸς - τὸν God. Θεόν.
Joh 1:3 All things πάντα came into being ἐγένετο, through δι’ Him, αὐτοῦ and καὶ without χωρὶς Him αὐτοῦ not even οὐδὲ one [thing] ἕν came into being ἐγένετο that ὃ has come into being. γέγονεν.
“the Word was God” This verb is imperfect tense as in Joh_1:1 a. There is no article (which identifies the subject, see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 66) with Theos, but Theos is placed first in the Greek phrase for emphasis. This verse and Joh_1:18 are strong statements of the full deity of the pre-existent Logos (cf. Joh_5:18; Joh_8:58; Joh_10:30; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:11; Joh_20:28; Rom_9:5; Heb_1:8; 2Pe_1:1). Jesus is fully divine as well as fully human (cf. 1Jn_4:1-3). He is not the same as God the Father, but He is the very same divine essence as the Father.
The NT asserts the full deity of Jesus of Nazareth, but protects the distinct personhood of the Father. The one divine essence is emphasized in Joh_1:1; Joh_5:18; Joh_10:30; Joh_10:34-38; Joh_14:9-10; and Joh_20:28, while their distinctives are emphasized in Joh_1:2; Joh_1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_5:19-23; Joh_8:28; Joh_10:25; Joh_10:29; Joh_14:11-13; Joh_14:16.
By him (di’ autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s Son as the one “through whom he made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “the all things were created in him” (Christ) and “the all things stand created through him and unto him” (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di’ hou).
Without him (chōris autou). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in Php_2:14, “apart from.” John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in Jhn_1:20; 1Jn_1:5. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation.
Not anything (oude hen). “Not even one thing.” Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause “that hath been made” (ho gegonen) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation.
Was with God (ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν)
Anglo-Saxon vers., mid Gode. Wyc., at God. With (πρός) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), i.e., in social relations with us (Mrk_6:3; Mat_13:56). “How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Mrk_9:16). “I sat daily with you” (Mat_26:55). “To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, 2Co_5:8). “Abide and winter with you” (1Co_16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 1Jn_1:2). Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.
And the Word was God (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But θεὸς, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. “There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of Jhn_1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness” (Meyer).
Don’t you agree @Servant1 ?
J.
Jesus assures the true followers will worship the Father in spirit and truth( John 4:22-24)–no others get worship. Notice how the Word is not called the same Greek word the true God is called at John 1:1–There is only one possible reason=God for the true God-god for the word=100% fact.
I notice you don’t offer sound rebuttals?
How about this?
The Greek text and clause structure.
John 1:1 reads:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Focus on the third clause:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Word order matters.
ὁ λόγος - “the Word” (subject, marked by the article)
θεὸς - predicate nominative (no article)
ἦν = imperfect of “to be”
So grammatically:
Subject - the Word
Predicate - God
- Why “θεὸς” lacks the article
You are claiming…
“No article = not the true God”
This is linguistically incorrect.
Greek does not function like English.
When a predicate nominative comes before the verb, it often drops the article to emphasize quality or essence, not identity confusion.
This is a well-established syntactical pattern often called Colwell’s rule.
So…
“ὁ θεός” - the God (definite, often referring to the Father in context)
“θεός” (pre-verbal) - describing what something is by nature
Thus…
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος - “the Word was God in essence”
Not “a god”
- Why “a god” is grammatically weak…
If John wanted to say “a god” in the sense you say, he had clearer ways:
He could have written:
θεὸς τις (a certain god)
or used a different construction to indicate indefiniteness.
But instead he places θεός first, which in Greek:
gives emphasis.
attributes nature or essence.
So the clause is qualitative, not indefinite.
4. Immediate context destroys the “lesser god” idea
Look at the flow…
In Gospel of John 1:3:
“All things were made through him”
If the Word were a created lesser god:
He would have had to create himself, which is impossible
Or be outside “all things,” which places Him on the Creator side, not creation
The grammar forces a Creator–creature distinction, and the Word is on the Creator side.
- Distinction without separation.
John carefully avoids modalism.
He writes:
“the Word was with God” (πρὸς τὸν θεόν)
This shows…
Personal distinction from the Father.
Then…
“the Word was God”
This shows…
Shared divine nature…
So the text holds both:
distinction of persons…
unity of essence…
- Answer to his appeal to John 4:22–24…
In Gospel of John 4:22–24, Jesus speaks of worship directed to the Father.
This does not exclude the Son.
Within the same Gospel:
~John 5:23 states that all must honor the Son just as they honor the Father
The comparison term “just as” (καθώς) establishes equivalence of honor…
If worship belongs only to the true God, and the Son receives the same honor, the conclusion is unavoidable.
- The real issue behind your argument @Servant1
You say…
“God vs god in John 1:1 proves Jesus is not God”
…rests on a misunderstanding of:
Greek article usage
predicate nominative structure
word order emphasis
It is not a neutral reading. It is a theological imposition onto the grammar, not derived from it.
So, see if you agree with the Scriptures here…
John does not say:
the Word was “a god”
He says:
the Word was God in nature
while also distinguishing Him from the Father.
That is exactly why the verse is constructed the way it is.
You agree?
J.
1 Like