We began #prosapologian, our IRC channel, to provide resources and information for people on-line. Over the months we’ve noticed that some folks (particularly, a man with the nick rstamp, i.e., Rick Stamp) would come into the channel, engage in a discussion or debate, and would then log the conversation. The log would then be posted on a web page, liberally expanded by commentary making rstamp look “good.” I found this procedure rather strange: most casual conversations are hardly worthy of posting on a web page. I know that most of the time I am chatting with someone I am doing at least one or more other things on my computer system at the same time. Hence, it hardly follows that anything one would have to say in IRC is particularly “polished.”
One evening in early January of 1999 I spoke with rstamp in a channel named #apologetics. He was busily going after a Christian on the subject of Jesus’ use of the phrase “ego eimi” at John 8:58 (and elsewhere). We discussed the subject, briefly. The next day, the log appeared on his web page, replete with commentary. That afternoon, an associate of rstamp’s, MSmart, came into #prosapologian. I decided to take the time to really interact with his assertions, and the result was most interesting:
*** MSmart (nobody@209.85.89.98) has joined #ProsApologian
<Cariv> haha
<Cariv> ole msmart
<Cariv> and his translate by statistics
<MSmart> hello Cariv
<Cariv> a novel idea incidentally
<Cariv> and not consistent at any rate
<Cariv> noting that the anarthrous theos at John 1:6 is not translated with an article in thw NWT
<Cariv> an indefinate article that is
<Cariv> among other anarthrous theos’
*** Cariv is now known as Ref^NCT
<MSmart> Cariv, any reason why you think that it should ?
* Orthaway goes to the web page “MSmart’s” hostmask indicates, and discovers it is….Rick Stamp’s!
<MSmart> That is no secret, Ortho.
<Ref^NCT> well msmart….im using your interpretation by statistic approach
<MSmart> I have contributed a few articles myself.
<Orthaway> So you just use different nicks, then?
<Orthaway> I see.
<MSmart> No, I am Martin Smart.
<Orthaway> And let me guess….your log is on, and you are looking for some more things to post?
<MSmart> Rick Stamp is Rick Stamp.
<Ref^NCT> haha
<MSmart> Posting is so much work ….. I hope not.
* Orthaway is amazed at folks who log IRC chats and then post them on their websites.
<Orthaway> At least when we have an IRC debate, we announce it, organize it, and make sure everyone involved is up to speed. 🙂
<MSmart> It does not take much to amaze you, doe it ?
<MSmart> IC, so you were not up to speed on ego eimi ?
<Orthaway> Yeah, I am conitinually amazed.
<MSmart> Many IRC channels keep their own logs and post them.
<Orthaway> Oh, I’m very much up to speed on it. It is just amazing to me that rstamp posts logs (well, altered ones—with lots of commentary inserted to help things move along), when he won’t do a formal debate on JW soteriology.
<MSmart> If I remember correctly, he has stated on the IRC log that he will do so on usenet news.
<Orthaway> And, given how Rick was treating Mondar in such a condescending, arrogant fashion…well, I just wouldn’t want to repeat such a performance. 🙂
<MSmart> I think you might want to re-read the log and see who was arogant.
<Orthaway> Yes, he only did that after refusing my offer to him, for he knows I am not involved in usenet. I *do* have the log of the invitation I made to him. Beukeboom was here at the time as well.
<Orthaway> I’ll leave that to reader, MS: I don’t have to insert my own comments to make myself look good. 🙂
<MSmart> I think rick was quite patient with Mondar, considereing he did not know his material.
<Orthaway> I have invited Rick to do the debate as we are doing a debate right now on our website, www.aomin.org.
<Orthaway> And then to follow up the formal presentation on the website with an in-channel discussion here in Pros.
<MSmart> I don’t think he trusts you.
<Orthaway> Quite a fair offer, but he won’t do it. It’s too bad.
<Orthaway> I don’t trust him, or you, for that matter, but that’s not a part of the invitation.
<Ref^NCT> whats rstamp worried about msmart?
<Orthaway> He would be welcome to post the exact same material on his own website, if he so chooses.
<MSmart> It seems you had the opportunity to defend your views on ego eimi in #apologetics and you did not answer the questions.
<Ref^NCT> ortho…rstamp was woefully inadequate when we bagan discussing reformed soteriology a while ago here in pros
<Ref^NCT> began
<MSmart> We are discussing ego eimi now.
<Orthaway> I did answer the questions—far more fully than rstamp answered the question of why the soldiers fell back at the utterance of ego eimi. But, I would have nothing to do with rstamp’s mockery of Mondar. It was disgusting to me.
<Orthaway> Ref: Soteriology is the weak point of almost every JW apologist I’ve ever met.
<MSmart> What exactly did Stamp say to Mondar that was mockery ?
<MSmart> I saw the log.
<Orthaway> If you’ve read the log, MS, I don’t need to answer that question. It was, and is, too obvious.
<Ref^NCT> i read that log, and i agree rstamp was quite condescending
<Ref^NCT> and arrogant
<MSmart> You read it on the Stamp site ?
<Ref^NCT> yep
<MSmart> Then perhaps you won’t mind being specific.
<Orthaway> Yes, I mind. I mind wasting time on the obvious.
<MSmart> Now, is it my perception, or is THAT arogant ?
<Orthaway> It is your perception.
<MSmart> Perception is everything.
<MSmart> I posted in the Trinity board regarding this and one of your supporters agreed that you did not appear to answer Rick’s questions.
<MSmart> Someone named Robin.
<Ref^NCT> msmart…rstamp did not appear to answer orthos questions
<Ref^NCT> and *that* was evident
<MSmart> http://www.serve.com/larryi/messages4/742.html
<Ref^NCT> wholly inadequate answer why the soldiers fell back
<MSmart> I guess everyone, not even all the Trinitarians agree.
<Ref^NCT> improbable and ridiculous actually
<MSmart> Because Jesus was the Son of God ?
* Orthaway has no interest in this silly argument.
* Orthaway reminds MS: he’s easily amazed.
<MSmart> You think that the ‘Son of God’ is not an awe inspiriing title ?
<Ref^NCT> yes because He was the Monogenes Son of God
<MSmart> True, what does monogenes mean to you ?
<Orthaway> Unique, one and only.
<Ref^NCT> only unique
<MSmart> it is unique, but not one and only.
<Orthaway> As in monogenes theos, “the Only Son, God.”
<Ref^NCT> yep check out hebrews 11 6
*** Orthaway is now known as Ortho
<MSmart> Because God has other sons.
<Ortho> There you go…..your answer is in your assertion.
<MSmart> Job 38:7
<MSmart> Ben elohim
<Ortho> Bene, actually.
<MSmart> ~heb Job 38 7
<Ortho> Infinitive construct, normally.
<MSmart> !heb Job 38 7
<Bible> Job38:7 brn ychd qvqby bkr vyryav ql bny elhym: (HEB)
<MSmart> ql bny elhym, all the sons of God.
<MSmart> But only the Christ is monogenes theos.
<Ortho> Only Christ is monogenes huios, too.
<MSmart> True, because John does not use the term Son lightly.
<Ortho> No biblical writer does, of course.
<MSmart> Especially when refering to the relationship between the Almighty God and His Son.
<Ortho> It is the uniqueness of His Sonship that caused such offense to the Jews (John 5:17-18).
<Ref^NCT> it is blaspheme to claim to be a Son of God?
<MSmart> Not just the uniqueness, but that they felt he was appropriating that title for himself (John 19:7)
<MSmart> ~kjv John 18 7
<Bible> John18:7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. (KJV)
<Ortho> Which he was, in fact.
<MSmart> ~kjv John 19 7
<Bible> John19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. (KJV)
<MSmart> yes he was and IS
<Ortho> You are trying to make a connection, MS?
<MSmart> This is the law they said he broke.
<Ref^NCT> what is the significance of the jews statement in 10:33?
<Ortho> Are you trying to say that when the soldiers fell back upon the ground, they understood the words “ego eimi” to be the same as “huios theou”?
<Ref^NCT> and please point us to this law in the oT msmart
<MSmart> The ego eiimi has as it’s obvious predicate ‘Jesus of Nazareth’
<Ortho> The connection with John 19 is John 5, directly.
<Ortho> MS: No one disputes that, but, it is also irrelevant to the point at hand. They did not fall back when he said Jesus of Nazareth, did they?
<MSmart> Ref, what is relavant is what those Jews thought THEN about Jesus, and they stated it at John 19:7.
<Ortho> Instead, as I pointed out to rstamp, IF you allow the text to speak for itself, the reason is obvious: John 18 does not exist separately from John 8, and John 13.
<MSmart> They did not try to stone him when he said ego eimi at Jn 8:24 and 8:28 either, why ?
<Ref^NCT> the fact that He was the monogenes Son of God (One and the same essence) is why they accused Him of blaspheme
<MSmart> Do you deny that there is an implied predicate to ego eimi at Jn 18:5-6 ?, Ortho ?
<Ortho> John is a tremendous writer, weaving intricate themes throughout his gospel. His tremendously balanced use of pistis, for example, and pisteuw, akouw, etc., all show us that he does not intend his work to be atomized and taken in bits and pieces.
<Ref^NCT> how is it blaspheme to claim to be a son of God?
<MSmart> He does not intend for us to try to insert our own meanings in between the lines, either.
<Ortho> In the same way, he builds upon his themes throughout the gospel. To ignore the connection between a use of a term or phrase earlier in the work and a use later is to completely miss his point.
<Ref^NCT> the jews recognized themselves as sons of God
<Ortho> All these things have been clearly discussed in any meaningful commentary on John—there are many excellent ones available.
<MSmart> Ref, in Jn 8 they said they were Sons of Abraham too.
<Ref^NCT> nevertheless, you havent answered how it was blaspheme
<Ref^NCT> thats a specific charge
<MSmart> Ortho, why did you not answer them in your article on ego eimi then ?
<Ortho> With all of that said, it is obvious to the unbiased observer that he (John) has a purpose in phrasing things the way he does. He twice repeats Jesus’ answer to the inquiry: not once, but twice.
<MSmart> Ref,
<Ref^NCT> and not leveled loosely
<MSmart> John 19:7
<MSmart> And Mark 14:61-63
<Ref^NCT> i again ask you tyop produce the law that states that that was blaspheme
<MSmart> !kjv Mark 14 61 62 63
<Ref^NCT> claiming to be a son of God
<Ortho> In so doing, he makes sure that no one can miss the action that prompts the falling of the soldiers. It was the utterance of the words “ego eimi” that caused them to fall back. Now, John makes no further comment. Why? Because that phrase would by now be easily understandable to the careful reader of his gospel.
<MSmart> !kjv John 19 7
<MSmart> Ref, the law is John 19:7
<Ref^NCT> msmart…i asked for you to produce *from the law* where in fact it states that that was a blapsphemous offence
<MSmart> Ref, why should I ?
<Ref^NCT> msmart…is this an impossible task for you?
<MSmart> Ref, the Jews had oral laws too.
<Ref^NCT> hahahahaha
<MSmart> And it was the oral laws that Jesus did not obey.
<MSmart> Like not healing on the Sabbath.
<Ortho> He had begun instruction on what ego eimi meant in John 8:24; he had highlighted it in 8:58; he had inserted an only slightly veiled reference to Isaiah 43:10 in 13:19, and now he brings the presentation to its culmination in 18:5-6. Of course, all through the gospel he had used it in such pregnant phrases as “I am the light of the world” or “the bread from heaven.”
<MSmart> Where does it say not to heal on the Sabbath ?
<Ref^NCT> so surely you should be able to produce from the mishna then this violation of balspheme
<MSmart> Yes, James, I am glad you can quote from your pre-printed material.
<Ortho> Hence, a serious, balanced approach to John’s gospel leads on to see exactly what John is communicating….and, I haven’t cut and paste a single thing I’ve typed to you, MS.
<MSmart> Ref, I don’t have a Mishna and I don’t need one in light of John 19:7
<Ref^NCT> there is a written record of the ‘oral tradition’…surely you are aware of this?
<MSmart> I remember the ‘pregnamt phrase’
<MSmart> From your writings.
<Ortho> Are you calling me a liar, MS?
<Ortho> Yes, I’m an author….authors use similar phrases.
<Ortho> I challenge you to find what I just typed in anything I’ve written….or apologize.
<MSmart> You have re-produced verbiage from your previous works, that’s fine, but non of that answers the questions that Rick asked.
<Bible> What difference would it make if Ortho was cutting and pasting, if the argument stands unreuted?
<Ortho> I can tell you carefully dealt with what I just wrote, MS. 🙂
<MSmart> No difference, Charis.
<MSmart> I am an editor.
<Ref^NCT> where do you see charis msmart?
<MSmart> In bible.
<MSmart> That is where he likes to hide.
<Ref^NCT> oh…heh
<MSmart> Right, Charis ?
<Ortho> And you don’t think that coming into someone else’s channel, making smart remarks (no pun intended), ignoring what is provided to you in the form of answers, accusing the channel op of dishonesty, and then blowing off the entire reply, is not arrogant, MS? Wowsers.
<MSmart> James, I did not acuse you of anything, I just made an observation which you appeared to confirm was accurate.
<Charis> MS: That still leaves you with the responsibilty of refuting Ortho’s claims regardless of wether he used a cut and paste to make his point.
* Ortho goegs back to an old question…..why did not the Jews seek to stone Jesus in 8:24? Because, MS, it takes time to get someone so upset that they seek to kill someone.
<Ortho> I did not confirm anything as accurate, MS.
<MSmart> Why does it take time if using the words ego eimi are to be understood as a claim to be Jehovah ?
<Ref^NCT> yes, He repeatedly said it so often they became enraged
<MSmart> And he said it again at 8:28.
<MSmart> Still not even a snide remark.
<Ortho> Look at it, MS:
<Ortho> ~niv John 8:24
<MSmart> James, do you have CB Williams NT ?
<Bible> John8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” (NIV)
<Ortho> ~niv John 8:25
<Bible> John8:25 “Who are you?” they asked. “Just what I have been claiming all along,” Jesus replied. (NIV)
<MSmart> CB Williams says ‘If you do not believe that I am the CHRIST’
<Ortho> See it? They IMMEDIATELY ask, “Who are you?” They *immediately* sense what He is communicating, and immediately begin to pursue His identity.
<MSmart> And the NASB says ‘I am He
<Ortho> MS: Yes, so?
<MSmart> If he used the divine title, why do they ask who he is ?
<Ortho> < sigh >
<MSmart> And he answers who he is at John 8:54 !
<MSmart> !John 8 54
<MSmart> ~niv John 8 54
<Bible> John8:54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. (NIV)
<Ortho> Why *wouldn’t* they ask?
<Ortho> Huh?
<Ortho> How is that related?
<Charis> Why do I get the felling that MS is simply NOT listening? ;\
<MSmart> He answers then and calls his Father Jehovah !
<MSmart> They have been talking about whose Father they were all this time.
<MSmart> the Jews say their Father is Abraham, and Jesus says no it is Satan (8:44)
<MSmart> Then he claims that Jehovah is his Father (8:54) !
<Ortho> Yes, so?
<MSmart> He claimed to be the Son of Jehovah, (Their God)
<Ortho> Yes, so?
<MSmart> If Jesus is the Son of Jehovah, he is not claiming to BE Jehovah.
<MSmart> Simple.
* Ortho expects to see yet another example of how JW apologists refuse to deal with the Trinity as it is defined here in a second….
<Ortho> Bingo. See. 🙂
<Charis> 😉
<Ortho> That’s why I included an entire section on the ASSUMPTION of unitarianism as the basis of all JW apologetics in the book.
<MSmart> And you don’t ASSUME Trinitarianism ?
<MSmart> You LOVE the Trinity.
<Ref^NCT> thats simply irrefutable and a persuasive argument msmart
<Ortho> See the reasoning: “If the Father is Jehovah, then Jesus can’t be, since, of course, Jehovah is unitarian.” There it is, in glowing ASCII. 🙂
<MSmart> But the Trinity can’t love you back.
<Ref^NCT> thats even more persuasive
<Charis> Sheesh
<MSmart> Because the Trinity is the substance, not a peson.
<MSmart> person.
<Ortho> Yes, I love the Trinity: and I demonstrate it from the Scriptures. It is a fact that the Father is identified as YHWH. It is *also* a fact that the Son is identified as YHWH.
<MSmart> It is a fact that Jesus is identified as the Son of YHWH.
<Ortho> I can’t accept both those truths—I am not forced, by pain of excommunication from an authoritative body, to dismiss one of those truths.
<MSmart> I gave Jn 8:54
<Ref^NCT> it is a fact that God says He will share His glory with *NO ONE* yet JOhn 17 is very clear
<MSmart> I arrive at the truth by a study of the bible (Jn 17:17)
<MSmart> Ref, you don’t want to go there.
<MSmart> In John 17 Jesus says he shares his glory with his disciples.
<Ref^NCT> id love to hear the twist on that one
<MSmart> Therefore by your definition, Jesus is not Jehovah.
<Ref^NCT> ~niv isa 42 8
<Ortho> It is the same with so many other issues: historical issues (Jerusalem fell in 586/87, not 607), soteriology (ALL who are led by the Spirit are sons of God, ALL who are justified are in the New Covenant, etc.), and other issues: the JW *cannot* do balanced exegesis, because the ends are already defined by the WTBTS.
<Bible> Isa42:8 “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (NIV)
<MSmart> On the other hand, it never says that Jehovah shares HIS glory.
<MSmart> Joh 17:22 Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.
<Ref^NCT> ~kjv john 17 5
<Bible> John17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (KJV)
<Ortho> Note even here: MS can’t differentiate between the glory that is intrinsically the Son’s in union with the Father in eternity itself (John 17), and the participatory glory of the redeemed who are in union with Christ. Why? Because the WTBTS forbids it, period.
<MSmart> THN DOCAN THN EMHN HN DEDWKAS MOI
<Charis> And clearly those ends refute in its entirety the JW’s assertions.
<Ref^NCT> with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
<Ortho> MS, are you baptized in the name of Yahweh, Michael, and an impersonal active force?
<MSmart> John 17:5 does not say it is the glory of YHWH that Jesus has, on the other hand it is Jesus OWN glory (THN DOCAN THN EMHN) that he shares with his followers.
<Ortho> Or is it in the name of the Father, Son, and the Organization? I was told that had been changed recently, but rstamp refused to confirm that for me.
<MSmart> Therefore by your reasoning, Ref, Jesus is NOT Jehovah.
<Ref^NCT> umm, i guess im not convinced msmart
<MSmart> James, you are trying to change the subject because you cannot refute my points.
<MSmart> Rick was right.
<Ref^NCT> lol
<Charis> MSmart: As a Pastor I am at this moment praying for you. What do you think about that? Serious question.
<Ortho> No, you have ignored 98% of what I’ve typed, so complaining that I’m not answering your questions is ridiculous.
<MSmart> Ref, John 17:24 — Do you deny Jesus shares his glory ?
<MSmart> Charis, YOU are a pastor ? In what Church ?
<Ref^NCT> msmart you are failing to distinguish b/w the Glory He shared WITH the Father as part of the unique glory oif God, and the glory that all the redeeemed share…its rather clear
<MSmart> James, you just inserted about 5 different subjects in the last 2 minutes !
* Ortho is as well.
<Charis> The Red Mills Baptist Church-Reformed Baptist. Why?
<MSmart> Ref, you are failing to distinguish your theology from what the bible actually says.
<MSmart> Charis, just curious.
<Ref^NCT> i suppose this *isnt* clear to you?
<Ref^NCT> ~kjv john 17 5
<Ortho> MS, you are failing to distinguish the teachings of the WTBTS from what the Bible actually says.
<Bible> John17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (KJV)
<MSmart> Ref, where does it say Jesus shares the personal glory of Jehovah ?
<Ortho> What other glory did Yahweh have “before the world was” MS?
<Ref^NCT> Who is He speaking to msmart?
<MSmart> !nasb John 17:5
<Ortho> What creature did Yahweh share His glory with before the creation of the world?
<Ref^NCT> Who is He speaking to msmart?
<MSmart> ~nasb John 17:5
<Charis> brb 🙁
<Ortho> What creature, indeed, is fit to be called El Gibbor (a term used in Isaiah 10:21 of Yahweh)?
<MSmart> Where does it say His Glory ?
<Ref^NCT> yes…excellent question ortho
<Ortho> What creature, indeed, is fit to be called Wonderful? Counselor?
<Ref^NCT> Who was He addressing??????
<Ortho> What creature, indeed, can be said to be unchanging, without end of days, the Creator of all things?
<Ref^NCT> Mighty even
<MSmart> oh 17:5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.
<Ortho> What creature’s name can be joined directly with Yahweh as the one into whose name believers are baptized?
<MSmart> It is the glory he had with the Father PRO TOU , when he was PROS TON QEON.
<Ortho> Can Michael, indeed, say, “Come unto ME, all you who labor and are weighed down, and *I* will give you rest….”
<Ref^NCT> how does that fit w/ isa 42 msmart?
<MSmart> When he was “with God” he had the glory. It does not say he shared the glory of God, That would be ‘THN DOCAN TOU QEOU’. It does not say that.
<Ref^NCT> I will share My glory alongside a created being…is that what isa 42 8 says?
<Ortho> Yes, MS: what does that mean? What creature had glory pro to theos?
<MSmart> Ref, who is speaking at Is 40 ?
<Ref^NCT> do you mean isa 42
<MSmart> Or James, who is speaking at Is 40 ?
<Ref^NCT> ?
<MSmart> ok, sure.
<MSmart> who.
<Ortho> Excuse me, MS, but your twisting of 17:5 cannot go unchallenged.
<MSmart> I am going back to your “proof” text, the one 17:5 is based on.
<Ortho> You are seemingly attempting to make a point on the basis of the Greek….and the Greek shows your error.
<MSmart> I am not changing the subject.
<Ortho> ~grk John 17:5
<MSmart> Who is speaking at Is 42 ?
<Bible> John17:5 kai nun doxason me su pater para seautw th doxh h eicon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi (GRK)
<Ref^NCT> God is speaking at isa 42
<Ortho> Well, do as you wish, I will expose your error for the record. 🙂 Look closely at the passage: if you are trying to say this is not the glory of God, you seem to have forgotten something.
<Ortho> It is the little phrase ‘para seautw.”
<Ortho> What does that phrase mean, MS?
<MSmart> alongside yourself
<MSmart> para = preposition of alongside.
<MSmart> It shows where Jesus was.
<MSmart> And WHO he was alongside (seautw) yourself (ie the Father)
<Ortho> Excuse me?
<Ortho> You think Jesus is claiming to be beside the Father here?
<Ortho> Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with
<Ortho> the glory which I had with You before the world was.
<Ref^NCT> msmart what a gross misrepresentation of the text
<MSmart> Which word are you translating as “with” , Ortho ?
<Ortho> That is the NASB….and the phrase refers to what is to be glorified.
<Ortho> BOTH the Father and the Son are glorified here, with the glory they shared before creation.
<MSmart> The word share is not in the Greek.
<Ortho> Jesus does not seek glorification *apart from* the Father, but *along with* the Father.
<Ortho> Hence, the glory can only be one glory: unless you think Yahweh has lots of different “glories.”
<MSmart> Fine, but the glory that the Father gave Jesus is shared by Jesus with others.
<Ortho> I didn’t say the word “share” was, MS. Please don’t misrepresent me. Do you dispute the meaning of “para” here?
<MSmart> And the test does not literally say that it is the Father’s glory that is given to Jesus, but the text DOES say that it is Jesus’s glory that he shares with his followers.
<Ortho> Wait a minute: you have been arguing all along that this is NOT Yahweh’s glory to which the Lord Jesus makes reference as having been shared by He and the Father before the creation.
<MSmart> Therefore in ligth of Is 42, Jesus canot be Jehovah because Jehovah does not share HIS OWN GLORY with anyone,
<Ortho> Now, are you telling us that in fact when Jesus asks that He AND the Father be glorified, that He is asking Yahweh to glorify Himself with a creaturely glory?
<MSmart> He is asking to be glorified with the glory he had when pros ton theon before he sarc egeneto.
<Ortho> OK—-and, He likewise requests that the FATHER be glorified in the same manner. Hence, what glory MUST be under consideration?
<Ref^NCT> What are you talking about msmart….does isa 42 say that the Lord will share his glory along side a created being?
<Ortho> Is Yahweh glorified by any glory other than God’s glory?
<MSmart> You are making an assumption that it is Jehovah’s glory, but the text does not say that.
<MSmart> brb
<Ref^NCT> WHO is Jesus praying to?????
<Ortho> OK, then don’t run from this….are you say that Yahweh can be glorified with a glory LESS THAN His own? Yes or no?
<MSmart> back
<MSmart> Man can glorify God, so I don’t understand your point.
<Ortho> It’s simple: you are asserting different kinds of “glory.” You say that the glory Jesus had with the Father was not God’s glory, but some other. Yet, Jesus asks that He be glorified ALONG WITH the Father (i.e., that the Father receive glory). What kind of glory, then, must be in view?
<Ortho> By the way, when men glorify God, we do not add to His glory, we only reflect it. Just a passing thought.
<Ortho> The fact is that your attempted distinction does not hold.
<MSmart> I am not saying anything. I am just pointing out that the text does not say in Jn 17:5 say the Father shares his own personal glory with anyone.
<Ref^NCT> and even worse he is attempting to assert that the glory spoken of in verse 5 is not the Fathers!!!!
<MSmart> It may be your interpretation, and you are welcome to it, but it does not say that.
<Ortho> Nor does it have to use the term “personal glory” to do so, MS. It has been shown to you that the glory shared by Father and Son is the glory that is fitting for the Father to receive. Hence, the “distinction” is in your own mind, not in the text, and is an example of eisegesis, not exegesis.
<MSmart> Ref, I said nothing of the sort. My comment was in reference to how God could be glorified by any glory that was not his own and I said that man glorifies God.
<Ortho> As for me and my house, seeing this passage as Michael the Archangel asking Yahweh to glorify Michael and Himself WITH THE SAME GLORY is obvious blasphemy.
<MSmart> The word “shared” is not there, and so I object to your use of it.
<MSmart> Can you answer WHO is speaking at Is 42 ?
<MSmart> That is the other half of your “prooftexting”.
<Ref^NCT> Jesus said He had (echo) the Glory with the father
<Ortho> Are you truly telling us, MS, that Michael and Yahweh are glorified with the SAME glory? Yes or no?
<Ref^NCT> i told you already Who was speaking
<Ref^NCT> it is God
* Ortho didn’t bring it up, but Isaiah 42:1 is the Father speaking of the Servant Messiah. So what?
<MSmart> I would like to discuss Is 42 and how it relates to Jn 17:5 so we can see how this all fits into place.
<MSmart> Ref, which person of the Triune being speaks at Is 42 ?
<Ref^NCT> you still havent answered how Jesus could have ‘HAD’ a glory with the Father?
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<Ref^NCT> It is the Father….as part of the Godhead
<MSmart> I am still back on the scripture that YOU introduced — Is 42
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<MSmart> Ok fine.
<MSmart> And the Father says he will not share his own glory with anyone. So that includes his Son.
<MSmart> So what is the problem ?
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<Ref^NCT> it can only be resolved with a Trinitarian formula
<Ortho> Of course, Ref.
<MSmart> I don’t recall discussing Michael. Did you change the subject again, James ?
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<Ref^NCT> Jesus can not HAVE (echo) a glory WITH (para) the Father if He is also not part of the Godhead
<MSmart> James, I don’t recall saying anything like that. Should I scroll up and look for it ?
<Ortho> One last time, MS.
<Ref^NCT> your interpretation creates a contradition
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<Ref^NCT> contradiction
<MSmart> James, I made no statement like that, so I fail to see how it fits into our conversation.
<Ortho> It’s relevance is obvious. Please answer the question, or leave the channel. Thank you.
<Ortho> We al know that JW’s believe Jesus is Michael. Hence, the question’s relevance is beyond question.
<MSmart> In Isaiah Jehovah, the Father says that He shares his glory with no other. That includes the Son so I think that this is now resolved, don’t you ?
<Ortho> It is the only logical result of your attempt to make John 17 fit WTBTS theology.
<Ortho> You have one last chance, MS.
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<MSmart> James, I think we should stick to what the text says, don’t you ?
*** MSmart was kicked by Ortho (Answer the question, or leave the channel. Thank you.)
*** MSmart (nobody@209.85.89.98) has joined #ProsApologian
<Ref^NCT> the Father speaks of the Godhead
<Charis> Thank you.
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<MSmart> I state the following: ( I was attempting to type as I was kicked)
<Ortho> One last time, MS. I will use the ban next time. Answer the question.
<Charis> Of cousre this will find its way to MS’s web site. 😉
<Ref^NCT> since He shares his glory with no one…how could a created being *have* that glory with Him before the world began?
<Ortho> Not before it reaches mine.
<Charis> 😉
<Ortho> I think this is one of the most useful examples of the utter inability of JW apologists to handle this topic.
<MSmart> The Father, Jehovah, said in Is 42 that He shares his personal glory with no other person. This includes his Son (who I believe had the name Michael before he became a man).
<Charis> Scripture please?
<MSmart> Does this meet your standards, or are you going to kick me again.
<Ortho> Thank you for admitting your inability to answer the question, MS.
<MSmart> Charis, Ref admitted that it was the Father speaking at Is. As James suggests, you can catch up with what you missed by reading the log.
<Charis> Where, in Scripture, do you find any support whatever for a claim that Jesus was Michael before He came to earth?
<Ortho> It must be very difficult to be forced to defend such an obvious erroneous and blasphemous assertion! I’m sorry for you, and pray God will deliver you from your bondage to the WTBTS. But, like it or not, you believe Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as Yahweh, and that by itself shows plainly the error of your position.
<MSmart> Charis, I have that on my web site, and I don’t have time for a lenghy discussion about it right now. You can read it and then we can talk.
<Charis> MS: So?
*** Disconnected
<MSmart> Ref, then why does the Son share his glory with his followers in John 17 ?
<Ref^NCT> id just like to know How Jesus could HAVE a GLORY WITH the Father with what you have just said?
<Ref^NCT> your refusal to answer this question betrays a weakness in argument
<MSmart> He was with the Father and had a glory, but he did not have the Father’s glory.
<MSmart> And since the scripture does not say it was the Father’s glory I see not reason to tamper with the text.
<Ref^NCT> WHOS GLORY IS SPOKEN OF???
<Ref^NCT> and WHo is Jesus praying to>
<Ref^NCT> ?
<Ref^NCT> where does the text substantiate another glkory other than the one spoken of????
<Ortho> Please answer the question, MS: Are you saying that Michael seeks to be glorified with the same glory as the Father? Yes or no?
<MSmart> It is the glory Jesus had before he became a man. He will once again have that glory.
<Charis> MS: I’m still waiting for the Scripture you are using to support your contention that Jesus was Michael Before He came to earth. Just the verse and or passages you are relying on will be sufficient, I am fimiler with your calims.
* Ortho prepares to add that question to a timer, and go have lunch.
<MSmart> The same glory that he had when he was with the Father, but the text does not say it was the Father’s glory.
<MSmart> Good idea, this is getting nowhere.
<Charis> Ortho: 😉
<MSmart> I really don’t like to argue.
<Ortho> Obviously.
<Ref^NCT> that is Who Jesus id praying to!!!!!
<Ortho> Until you can answer that question, I see no reason for you to continue.
<Charis> I agree.
<Ortho> Thanks for visiting, though. It has been most useful.
