Jesus, the lessor god ?

[JAYMZ]

How do Jehovahs witnesses reconcile these verses ?

Verses like Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 46:9 doesnt seem to leave any room for your view that Christ is a " lessor " god. The old testament makes it clear that there is only ONE God. Its called monotheism. The LDS have some confusion with this concept also.

Also...........

In verses like Isaiah 42:8 shows a clear principle that God will not share his glory and honor with anyone or anything. The writer of Psalm 86:12 understood this concept.

Reconcile that with the glory and honor that Christ had in heaven ( John 1:14, John 17:5, John 8:54, John 12:29 ) and received on earth.............and has now.

So Gods NOW going to share his glory with one of his created beings, an angel, then let him be a second god ?

[enedraAT]

I know this is an older thread. But these arguments come on. out of context.

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

all those verses are directed to false, idol gods, not whether God would share his glory with his firstborn. Since when is God not allowed to share glory with anything he so pleases?

In any case, as we both agree Jesus is firstborn of the father, in the Bible the firstborn was given rights over and above the rest. In short I beleive your objection is weak.

Another point, we don't say Jesus is an angel in the sense you want to make it. He was known as Michael the Archangel, not that he was *just* an angel

[Billen]

Since when is God not allowed to share glory with anything he so pleases?

If God did that, God would have lied. Then what he said in Isaiah 43:10 be a false statement:

Ye [are] my witnesses,
saith the LORD, and my
servant whom I have
chosen: that ye may know
and believe me, and
understand that I [am] he:
before me there was no God
formed, neither shall there

be after me.

If we read further, The LORD (JHVH, Jahve or Jehovah) is also the only savior

v11
I, [even] I, [am] the
LORD; and beside me

[there is] no saviour.


God did of course remind Israel only to trust him and not be led astray by the babylonian teaching, but if we believe Gods word to be accurate we must also trust the God did not say this in a rash statement, and then later "whoops, I did not mean exactly that."

Jesus is in NT titled both God, Saviour and Redeemer, titles that in GT belongs to JHVH exclusively. That might be a hint...


Concerning the use of "firstborn". Jacob became the firstborn of Israel, although he was not the first to come out of the womb. Esau was.
Firstborn is the title that were bestowed the inheritance of the house, and not refering to the litteral birth. Having the title of "firstborn" is having the rights of inheritance.
A proper title for Jesus to have, as the new covenant was made and Jesus "inherited the house" as God. A new era had begun.

[enedraAT]

This such an eye-roller argument. These statements (diatribes really) are directed to false idol gods, while I don't feel like getting into every jot and tittle of every statement in Isaiah, they need to be interpreted in context.

You cite Isa 43:10 but vs 12 shows what is meant "It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And I am God. [NASB]

in vs 11 "no other saviour", Jehovah used agents to accomplish whatever he needed (Cyrus for example), he is the ultimate source of salvation, not that anyone whom he appoints must be a 'person' of him.

What I meant by firstborn is that Jesus is on a higher status, so every single thing Jesus does doesn't need have to an explicit precedent by someone else [ie. lesser, non-firstborns] having done it already.

[Billen]

Esau sold his rights as firstborn to Jacob. So what was it, that Esau lost? Was it a "higher status"? No, it was the blessing, the promise of God, that now were to come through Jacob and not Esau. Esau sold his inheritance and Jacob purchased the right of the firstborn.
Having status of firstborn, is having the right of inheritance of the house.

God exclaims in Isa 43:10 that he is THE ONLY God. There is non other, therefore the babylonian gods is not real, they're false.Others may elevate themselves to gods (including israellites themselves), but they are still not real, they're false.
Actually most of the OT explains that there is only one existing God, and all other claims of godhood are false claims. If Jesus were to be a god of lower rank than a supreme God, that relationsship would be very contradictory to the OT explanations of monoteism. If there were any more gods than one, the claims in Isa 43:10 would be false:
"... Before me there was no other gods formed, neither shall there be after me"

The context is that the israellites are explained not to trust the babylonian gods, and THE ARGUMENT is, that there exists only God, THE ONLY God. If there were any other gods other than God, or if there were come to be any new god(s), the argument would be invalid, it would be a lie. And it would be polytheism (Supreme God + lesser gods).

[Billen]

Cyrus may have been a tool, according to OT, but he is never credited as Saviour. God is.

Jesus, on the other hand, is titled Saviour throughout NT.
Acts 4:12 (about Jesus)
"Neither is there Salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be Saved".

Peter, as an example, may be percieved as a tool of God, as Peter did a lot of work spreading the word about Jesus as Saviour. But Peter is never credited as Saviour. Jesus is.

[enedraAT]

Isa 43:11- there is no other yasha (#H3467)

in judges 3:9-Then the people of Israel cried out to the LORD for help. The LORD sent a savior[H3467] to rescue them. It was Othniel, son of Caleb's younger brother Kenaz.

[Billen]

I see what ou try to say with Judges 3:9 but I do not see it counter the essence. The israellites stretched their hands towards God to be saved from their situation, not toward Othniel. God sent Othniel.

With Jesus we are to go directly to him for salvation.

Acts 4:12 (about Jesus)
"Neither is there Salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be Saved".

[Speed Donkey]

Yeah!

[Roy]

I'm so disappointed. I was expecting this post to be about purchasing indulgences.

Roy

[Sparko]

This such an eye-roller argument. These statements (diatribes really) are directed to false idol gods,

So how many TRUE Gods are there?

[Billen]

Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Jesus have recieved the ability to selfsustain his own life, thus being "the only created god". Everyone else are dependent on recieving "lifeforce" from Jehovah. Except those of the "slaveclass", the 144.000, that have died as loyal servants of Jehovah. Those too are said to recieve "selfsustaining life", thus becoming independant of Jehovah to give them lifeforce to life. These 144.000 are to be regarded as Jesus' brothers and will rule side by side with Jesus in the coming 1000 year Kingdom over the entire earth.

Thus Jehovahs Witnesses expect to have Jehovah as Supreme God, and 144.001 lesser gods (kings and priests over the residents of earth)

[Sparko]

I understand their twisting of scripture, but how many true Gods are there?

[Billen]

Perhaps John 17:3 gives a clue:

And this is life eternal, that
they might know thee the only
true God, and Jesus Christ,

whom thou hast sent.

[barnasha]

How many true gods? as many as you want to worship. since each person defines his religion - just like Abraham, Jesus, and Moses each had to do for themselves. the greeks and romans worshiped quite a few. what makes a true god is the introduction of a certain truth/value scale, for which there are at least as many as there are people to conceive of them.