| Large inset text in center page 19 'New Testament research has been leading an increasing number of scholars to the conclusion that Jesus certainly never believed himself to be God.' -Bulletin of the John Rylands Library | The Watchtower totally misleads the reader by not only omitting incredibly important information, but not even using ellipses (i.e. ". . .") to warn the reader something has been removed from the large inset text in the middle of page 19! Look what they removed! "the fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have claimed any of the Christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation 'Christ', and certainly never believed himself to be God." (Bulletin of The John Rylands Library, Vol 50, (1967-68) p 247-261, "Jesus As 'Theos' In The New Testament", by G. H. Boobyer) These same researchers have concluded that Jesus not only wasn't God, but wasn't even the Christ! Who are these leading researchers who in the last 30 years have rejected that Jesus is God? Why liberal theologians who also trash the whole Bible! Research from 1940-1970 by Bible haters, doesn't change the conclusions of real Bible students of the previous 1900 years that Jesus did in fact believe he was God! |
| Jesus Continues Subordinate Similarly, we read at Hebrews 5:8 that Jesus "learned obedience from the things he suffered." Can we imagine that God had to learn anything? No, but Jesus did, for he did not know everything that God knew. And he had to learn something that God never needs to learn-obedience. God never has to obey anyone. Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him told the Jewish Sanhedrin: "God exalted this one [Jesus] . . . to his right hand." (Acts 5:31) Paul said: "God exalted him to a superior position." (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is, raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God. | Phil 2:5-6 teaches that Jesus was equal with God in his pre-earth existence but gave that equality up when he became a man. He then learned obedience (something new for God who always gives the orders) and died on the cross for us. At the resurrection and ascension, God highly exalted him. Is that so hard to understand? Click here for more details about the Subordination of Christ to the Father. JW don't realize that Trinitarians actually teach this! |
| Paul also said that Christ entered "heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf." (Hebrews 9:24, JB) If you appear in someone else's presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate. | More JW confusion by not knowing the difference between trinity and modalism. |
| In agreement with the foregoing, the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, states: "In his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared with God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God's heavenly court, just as the angels were-though as God's Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them." The Bulletin also says: "What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God." | The author of this article denies the inspiration of the Bible! Although the author denies Jesus is God, he also denies in the same article that Jesus is the Christ: "the fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have claimed any of the Christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation 'Christ' |
A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
| In the everlasting future in heaven, Jesus will continue to be a separate, subordinate servant of God. "Then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all."-1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, NJB. | Trinitarians agree! But do JW's understand this Trinitarians agree! This is supposed to proof trinity is false. Yet Trinitarians teach the exact same thing! How deceptive to use arguments against Trinitarians when they agree! |
| Jesus Never Claimed to Be God The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is being recognized by an increasing number of scholars. As the Rylands Bulletin states: "The fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus . . . certainly never believed himself to be God." The Bulletin also says of first-century Christians: "When, therefore, they assigned [Jesus] such honorific titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God's work." | Wow is the devil laughing at Jehovah's Witnesses who carry his satanic little Watchtower booklet around! This modernist from the Rylands Bulletin is getting a lot of press time! This is the second time they have quoted this statement! Again we remind you that the author said in the same sentence. Take close look at where they put the ellipse [ . . . ] "reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus ... himself may not have claimed any of the Christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation 'Christ ... certainly never believed himself to be God." Such a quote is outright proof of satanic deception! |
| Thus, even some religious scholars admit that the idea of Jesus' being God opposes the entire testimony of the Bible. There, God is always the superior, and Jesus is the subordinate servant. | Now you know the kind of scholars that the JW's rely upon to promote their doctrine... Bible trashers! The Rylands Bulletin article was written by a man who rejects the inspiration of the Bible itself! Buy these are the only scholars the watchtower can find to agree with them! |
| The Holy Spirit-God's Active Force THE Bible's use of "holy spirit" indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations. | Truth, the Bible's use of Holy Spirit leaves us with no conclusion other than He is a person. Click here and judge for yourself! |
| "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power." -A Catholic Dictionary | Deceptive quoting. Click on link to see full text. |
| Not a Person ARE there not, however, Bible verses that speak of the holy spirit in personal terms? Yes, but note what Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this in The Triune God: "Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person." | Another deceptive quote. Fortman, is commenting only on the Old Testament, where many things were not as fully revealed as they are in the New Testament. Fortman says in the very next paragraph: "However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament." |
| In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: "Sin is a demon crouching at the door," personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain's door. But, of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person. | While we agree that personification is found throughout the Bible, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to be explained as personification. |
| At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to "the name . . . of the holy spirit." But the word "name" does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say "in the name of the law," we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament says: "The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority." So baptism 'in the name of the holy spirit' recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will. | Robertson, a Trinitarian, is right in his comments. The expression, "open up in the name of the law" is common today. Stated more accurately, "open up by the authority vested in me by the king (president, minister of justice etc.) as it is written in his law. The power of Mt 28:19 is that all three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same name! It does not say, "In the name of the Father, name of the Son and name of the Holy Spirit". So this invalidates the JW argument, because all three are seen as persons with authority! Authority of law has its source in persons not electricity! So Mt 28:19 is an example of metonymy. (a device whereby one thing is used as a substitute for another with which it is closely identified. "Word today came from the White House..." it actually came from someone in the White House) "Name" meaning "authority" is substituted for the person himself from which the authority is derived. Again, electricity does not have any inherent authority and the JW explanation is ridiculous at best! Another key point in Mt 28:19 is that it makes no sense to suggest the passage is saying, "Open up in the name of a person (F), person (S), thing (HS)." All three are persons or none are person! There are no exceptions to this anywhere! Having said all this. There no compelling reason why we must consider the use of "name" to be metonymy. In the book of acts, the name into which they were baptized was a literal name, "Jesus" Acts 2:38; 4:12; 19:5. Finally sinners are baptized INTO (greek: eis) the name of Jesus, and baptized into Christ as in Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 12:13 etc. |
| The "Helper" JESUS spoke of the holy spirit as a "helper," and he said it would teach, guide, and speak. (John 14:16, 26; 16:13) The Greek word he used for helper (pa·ra'kle·tos) is in the masculine gender. So when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns. (John 16:7, 8) On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. | What the watchtower is saying here is correct. Rules of grammar dictate the gender of the pronouns. The neuter gender argument against trinity is refuted, click here to view. In case you hadn't noticed, the use of HE in John 14:16 is also proper. |
| Most Trinitarian translators hide this fact, as the Catholic New American Bible admits regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" | So if something is referred to as an "it" cannot be a person? Such an argument displays a dismal understanding of Greek because Jesus is referred to as "it" 5 times in: Mt 2:8, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21 and John the Baptist is referred to as "it" 8 times: Lk1:59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67. Click for more. Usage of "He" in reference to the Holy Spirit:
|
| So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. | This is correct, the rules of grammar do dictate the gender of pronouns. But this just proves the Holy Spirit is a person all the more because the rules of grammar in John 16:13 dictate that the pronoun should be neuter (it) because the neuter "spirit" is its object. Yet we find that Jesus deliberately broke the rules of grammar to emphasize the Holy Spirit is a person in John 16:13. Jesus used the masculine "He" next to the neuter "spirit" rather than the correct "it"! AT Robertson says in Jn 16:13, that a "masculine demonstrative pronoun, though followed by neuter [pneuma] in apposition." Robertson may be right, although the pronoun is lacking, except its first occurrence. (the rest being supplied by translators). In verse 14 the same masculine pronoun is used as at the beginning of v 13. It is possible, however, that these masculine pronouns may in fact refer back to v 7, although such is possible, it is far from certain! |
| A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power." | We don't dispute that the Holy Spirit is associated with divine power or energy, but this doesn't prove the Holy Spirit is mere energy and nothing more! Deceptive quote! The dictionary says in the same article: "Poetical personification would be quite out of place here, and Meyer rightly treats the words as decisive. In the fourth Gospel, however, this personal existence is stated more fully and plainly" |
| What About Trinity "Proof Texts"? Three in One THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19." | We don't even attempt to defend the Catholic 4th century developed doctrine of three in one. We defend the personality of the Holy Spirit and that Jesus is uncreated God. |
| In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." | Notice even the Watchtower can see that these three passages clearly speak of PERSONS! |
| Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one. | We agree these passages do not teach the 4th century developed Catholic trinity! We don't even care to defend it! All we need to show is that the Holy Spirit is a person and it is game over the Jehovah's Witnesses. Notice that even the Watchtower admits three persons are clearly indicated: Tom, Dick, and Harry. Although the passages to not indicate they are three in one, they do indicate all three are persons! Game over! |
| This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor." | Again we completely agree! These passages do indeed prove three persons are named! Game over again! |
| Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." | Why did the Watchtower not tell you about what McClintock does go on to say: "Here we might infer, from the parallelism of the third member of the passage with the two former, the personality of the Holy Spirit" |
| Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father." | We agree with Calvin, but remember that when Jesus uttered this statement, the Jews immediately wanted to stone Him. Look at the very next verse: "'I and the Father are one.' The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. ... The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."" Merely agreeing with God would not cause them to want to Stone Jesus. The Jews believed they themselves were in agreement with God! If mere agreement with the Father was all Jesus meant, then they should have stoned Moses for the same kind of agreement. The truth is, the Jews understood this statement as a declaration of equality with the Father as being uncreated God. In this passage Jesus never says, "I am not God". Click here for more details. |
| "Making Himself Equal to God"? "The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30] to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father." -Commentary on the Gospel According to John, by John Calvin | Again we agree with Calvin. John 10:30 cannot be used to prove 4th century Catholic developed trinity doctrine. We would never claim that we can prove from John 10:30 that Jesus was the same essence as the Father. But Calvin flat out states that the text does prove Jesus to be uncreated God! (But JW's won't let you read that part!) He even mentions their false doctrine specifically in the same paragraph! |
| ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because "he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God." | Jehovah's Witnesses know they are in deep trouble with this verse and resort to tricks. They imply that Jesus did not teach he was equal with God, but the Jews said this as a false charge because they misunderstood what Jesus was actually saying. Problem is that it is John the apostle who said Jesus was "calling God his Father, making himself out equal with God." This in fact is true! So take careful note that John, as the narrator the Gospel of John, flat out states that Jesus was "calling God his Father, making himself out equal with God." Click here for a detailed look at John 5:18. |
| "Equal With God"? AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse: 1869: The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes. 1965: Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin. 1968: La Bibbia Concordata. 1976: Today's English Version. 1984: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. 1985: The New Jerusalem Bible. | Jehovah's Witnesses cannot find one single reputable known translation that translates Phil 2:6 the way they think it should be. So they go back 130 years or find obscure one man transitions by fellow Anti-Trinitarians. Of course we commend them for quoting the New Jerusalem Bible which agrees with the KJV. |
| In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" | Trinitarians take both the active and passive of "harpagmos" (grasped). Martin flat out says that both are possible in the Greek. But either way, the text still teaches that Jesus was either equal to God as a possession or able to be equal with God, as an inherent right that the Father could not refuse. Here is how Martin interprets the passage: "The eternal Son of God, however, faced with a parallel temptation, renounced what was his by right, and could actually have become his possession by the seizure of it, viz. equality with God, and chose instead the way of obedient suffering as the pathway to his lordship." Notice that Martin takes the active, just like JW's but still comes to the conclusion opposite to JW! |
| The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'" | Jehovah's Witnesses project the false impression that since Kennedy takes the active interpretation of harpazo (grasped at), that Jesus is a creature. In fact Kennedy out right states that the passage teaches Jesus is uncreated God. Kennedy's assessment is that the text of Phil 2:6-10 clearly portrays Jesus as deity (uncreated God.) Kennedy's interpretation is summed up in our paraphrase: "Although Jesus while he walked the earth, knew he had existed before all time as uncreated God, He did not violently force [active har·pa'zo] men to accept his equality with God with the use of his inherent divine powers. Instead, he chose the path of humility that lead first to death, then to being proclaimed worthy of worship after the resurrection and exhalation by God to possess a name among men equal to Jehovah of the Old Testament. |
| The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: "In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves." ... Jesus, who 'esteemed God as better than himself,' would never 'grasp for equality with God,' but instead he "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death." | There are two ways to view the humility of Jesus in the passage:
|
| "I Am" AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am." Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"? | Click here for a detailed look at Jn 8:58 that proves Jesus is uncreated! Jehovah's Witnesses know they cannot explain John 8:58 and are all "over the map", trying to convince themselves why a simple present tense Greek phrase, should not be translated as present tense "I am" in English. The circus of Watchtower grammatical flip flops in translating John 8:58 is fully exposed by clicking here. |
| At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'" | Dr, Hertz is a Jewish Rabbi who share a common desire with JW's to dispel any connection with the "I Am" of Jehovah in Ex 3 and the "I Am" of Jesus in John 8:58. The fact remains that when the Watchtower searched long and hard enough, they finally found a Rabbi that would say what they wanted. We could quote a pile of Rabbi's who are honest enough to admit that Ex 3 should be rendered "I am who I am"... "I am". |
| The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. | JW's are wrong when they say there is no connection of Jn 8:58 with Ex 3:14. But they have not yet comprehended that the major backdrop of Jesus' words, "I AM" are found in Isaiah chapters 40-55. The connection is so clear and unmistakable, that we classed the connection of Jn 8:58 with Is 40-55 in the category of irrefutable! Click here for the amazing outline! In this outline you will see how Jesus deliberately echoes a pattern of themes that are unique to Jehovah by using the expression "I AM" (Greek: ego eimi; Hebrew: ani hu). The high density of I AM sayings of Jehovah found in Chapters 40-55 of Isaiah match the high density of I AM sayings of Jesus in the gospel of John. |
| Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58 ... | The Watchtower again digs back 150 years to find obscure "one man paraphrased" non-english Bible's. No major translation renders it the way JW's say it should be. |
| "The Word Was God" AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself. | Click here for a detailed look at how Jn 1:1 proves Jesus is not a creature. The irrefutable argument stated: This verse is so simple it is impossible to get it wrong. An illustrated paraphrase of the text would be:
|
| Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person. Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God. | Again the Watchtower confuses modalism with trinity. Such deliberate deception. No Trinitarian says that Jesus is the same person as the Father so the argument is irrelevant, but JW's are too blind to notice this deception. They just say, "Ya, that's right, trinity is obviously wrong.?" We wish they knew Trinitarians agree that it is wrong! We fully agree with author Harner's comment in the Journal of Biblical Literature edited by Fitzmyer. Only deception would quote something Trinitarians agree with in order to refute them. |
| The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite." | The Watchtower extracts an isolated quote, and draws the opposite conclusion that the author later states to be his interpretation. Even worse, Harner (Journal of Biblical Literature) flatly denies that John 1:1c could be translated "a god" or "divine". |
| So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. | Wrong, the very article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, written by Harner, specifically rules this out! How satanic to use the quote the way JW's do! Harner's final conclusion in the Journal as to how the verse should be translated is this: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." How satanic they fail to tell the reader this! |
| Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." | Thayer, like Jehovah's Witnesses, was a Unitarian who believed Jesus was a creature. The quote is supposedly from Joseph Henry Thayer's "personal copy" of Griesbach's Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer's handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved. You won't find this quote in any book, neither do we know for sure who wrote the comment. It is a handwritten comment in a book Thayer owned. Even if it is Thayer's own handwriting how do we know that is what he thought the text mean, or whether he was just scribbling in what he thought it COULD NOT MEAN! For the Watchtower to even make reference to this obscure quote is a sign of desperation! |
| And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'" | The Watchtower takes little bits of McKenzie's comments on Jn 1:1 (a god) and leaves the false impression in the mind of the reader that McKenzie agreed with the JW's mistranslation. McKenzie is not a polytheist like JW's who have a whole hierarchy of created Gods. Rather McKenzie uses the term "a divine being" in the sense of Jesus not being a creature. McKenzie would call the Father "a divine being". So the quote is doesn't help JW's at all, when read in context and is deceptive the way they use it. |
| No Conflict DOES saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ´elo·him']," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things" at 2 Corinthians 4:4. | Wow, JW's have forgotten that even the Father is called "a god" many times in scripture, even in their corrupt sectarian paraphrase they call a Bible, the New World Translation! But here the polytheism of the Watchtower begins to shine through! Men are Gods, Angels are Gods even the Devil is a God. It should be obvious that the Bible applies the word "God" in figurative, symbolic and poetic ways not to be used as the back drop of polytheism! |
| Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a "Mighty God."-John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6. But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position. | So according to the JW system of polytheism, The Father is at the top, being called "Almighty God" and Jesus is second below Him being called "Mighty God". Problem is, the Father is also called "Mighty God" in Isa 10:21 and Jer 32:18. This proves that the two terms are synonymous and used exclusively of uncreated beings. |
| The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, "in none of these instances is 'theos' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho Theos,' that is, the Supreme God." And the Bulletin adds: "If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?" | Here we go again with the same Rylands Library article by Karl Rahner. This is the fourth time the Watchtower has quoted this man who denies the inspiration of the Gospels! Notice the Watchtower goes out of their way to tell you Rahner is a CATHOLIC! Yes indeed! A Catholic who rejects the Bible is God's inspired word! It is very sad that the general public who read this Watchtower booklet, are not aware that many of the quotes are from Bible trashers like Rahner. Such quotes are valueless. |
| But what about the apostle Thomas' saying, "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like "a god," especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God. | Jn 20:28 is about as clear an affirmation of the fact Jesus is uncreated God, as you can find. Not only does the text say that Thomas specifically directed, "My Lord and my God" to Jesus, but here is another example, like in Jn 1:1 where HO THEOS is used, except this time it is addressed to Jesus. Thomas's statement is so powerful that the Watchtower concludes the Thomas spoke the words to the Father, THROUGH Jesus and that Jesus was not really Thomas' Lord or God. The fact Thomas did address Jesus as his God, proves that Thomas did think of Jesus as the almighty creator God. |
| Worship God on His Terms Therefore, if we want God's approval, we need to ask ourselves: What does God say about himself? How does he want to be worshiped? What are his purposes, and how should we fit in with them? An accurate knowledge of the truth gives us the right answers to such questions. Then we can worship God on his terms. | Problem for Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus worshipped many times in the Bible. (Seven times in Matthew 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9,19; plus many others) Further, the worship of Jesus was the common practice among Christians in both private and public worship services from 30 AD to 200 AD. |
| Dishonoring God Beyond a doubt, the Trinity doctrine has confused and diluted people's understanding of God's true position. It prevents people from accurately knowing the Universal Sovereign, Jehovah God, and from worshiping him on his terms. As theologian Hans Küng said: "Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?" But that is what belief in the Trinity has done. |
Go back to Part 1: "Trinity is of pagan origin" section
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Glad believers are pushing back against these false, deceiver cults.
Anti Christ spirit operating in this forum.
mat 21
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Reject the King.
very bad gamble indeed
Anti Christ spirit operating in this forum.
mat 21
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Reject the King.
very bad gamble indeed
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
“God with us” is an expression or indication of God’s backing and support....Look what God told Moses....before he led Israel out of Egypt.....
Exodus 3:11-12...from The Complete Jewish Bible....
“But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should take the children of Israel out of Egypt? 12 And He said, "For I will be with you, and this is the sign for you that it was I Who sent you. When you take the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."
How was God “with” Moses? Did that make Moses....God?
What was the “sign”? Can you see a correlation with Isaiah‘s prophesy about “Immanuel” and the sign? (Isa 7:14)
In the following verses, in Exodus 3:13-15, the conversation goes....(The Complete Jewish Bible)
| 13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" | יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם: | |||
| 14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" | ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם: | |||
| 15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation. |
|
So the Jewish rendering of God’s name in English here is not “ I Am” but “I Will Be”.....there is no connection whatsoever with John 8:58 where Jesus was answering a question about his age, and according to Strongs, “eimi” has several meanings as you can see in the way this word is used in the rest of the Christian scriptures....
“εἰμί eimí, i-mee'; the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):—am, have been, × it is I, was.”
So a past tense answer was required for a past tense question.....being asked about his age (not his status as a deity) Jesus replied “Before Abraham was born, “I existed”...”I was” or “I have been”...all legitimate responses to the question Jesus was asked. Any connection with John 8:58 is a suggestion, just read into the text by those with an agenda.
Check it out for yourself....Strongs Concordance
See the number of verses that have no number, which is where it is assumed to be, not where it actually is. You seem to have no idea how the scriptures are manipulated by the translators who were pretty much all trinitarians and wanting the scriptures to support their doctrine, when they do not....and never did.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Again there is an assumption upon which the interpretation of these verses depends.....the assumption that John 1:1 is an accurate translation of the original Greek....and the meaning of the word “theos”....the primary meaning given by Strongs is...
- “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”
It can also mean....
- “whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
- God's representative or viceregent
- of magistrates and judges.”
- God's representative or viceregent
So, translation bias can twist the meaning of words from one language to another very easily.
When you consult a Greek Interlinear, it is important that the translation be accurate.....so is it? The Greeks did not have a word for a god with no name, so when the “one God” of Israel was mentioned along with others of godlike status, the only way to distinguish him was to use the definite article (THE...”ho”) a little word, but with a very important meaning.
When you consult Interlinear translations you can often see “ho” before many words as it is in English, but using “theos” without the definite article when more than one “theos” is mentioned in a passage, it indicates a difference in the “god” being referred to.....but it is left out to purposely suggest the wrong “god”.
Jesus is rightly called “a god” because all reference to him is without the definite article.....as it is in John 1:1. Only the first reference there is to Yahweh....the second reference has no definite article indicating a divine, godlike person or one whom God authorised to act in his behalf, like the judges in Israel whom Yahweh himself called “gods”. (John 10:31-36) In that passage, Jesus identifies himself as “the son of [the] God” (“ho theos”)
No matter how scripture has been twisted to suggest what it does not say, only those who put in the effort to study the Greek will see what is plainly written, but not plainly translated.
See above...another translation error. That makes no sense as an English translation....the tense is all wrong, but you’ve made an excuse for it below....
Or it is actually written in the tense it was asked....Jesus was stating that he existed before Abraham as “the Word” (logos)....he was God’s spokesman down through mankind’s history. Every time God spoke to sinful man it was through his logos.
In a world ruled by the devil, nothing is as it “seems”.....the great deceiver will operate at the highest level to corrupt and mislead all who swallow his lies, taking down with him all whom he can fool as to the very nature and person of Yahweh, putting another “god” in his place...a clear breach of the first Commandment. (Ex 20:3) The God of Israel was “one” (Deut 6:4) and he has not changed.
Yahweh is the only God and the only Savior....there is just one Almighty God, but there are others called “theos” who are not the Almighty.....these are the ones authorised by him to act in his behalf. Jesus is said to be “God’s holy servant”......he is God’s High Priest.....and he is also a savior, sent by God in that capacity. The one sent by the Savior is also a savior. (Judges 3:15) It is not an exclusive title just as “Lord”is not an exclusive title.
Jesus said we must “know” this God AND the one whom he sent (John 17:3)....we are not instructed to know a trinity god but the persons who are in union with one another....Father and son who constructed all that exists. God’s “Master Worker” was by his Father’s side as indicated in Prov 8:30-32.
He is the “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26. He was the very first of God’s creations. (Col 1:15-17; Rev 3:14)
It does not demean him in any way to view him as the Scriptures portray him, and how he portrayed himself.
Jesus has a God...even in heaven. (Rev 3:12) God does not worship himself....
Runningman
Active Member
When Jesus is bowed to by someone whether they be in heaven, earth, or under earth then Jesus doesn't get any glory for that. All of the glory goes solely and exclusively to God. The only true God is the Father.
Philippians 2
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
Paul said God is eternal, immortal, and invisible and that He is the only God. Since those are what God is, then that isn't Jesus. God is eternal, yet Jesus was created. For God alone possesses immortality, yet Jesus died and was resurrected by God. God is invisible, yet Jesus is the "image of the invisible God."
1 Timothy 1
17Now to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.
1 Thessalonians 1
9For they themselves report what kind of welcome you gave us, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God 10and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.
Similar threads
- Locked
