Question:
Jehovah Witnesses, if Jesus isnt God then why are these scriptures in your bible (NWT)?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Jehovah Witnesses, if Jesus isnt God then why are these scriptures in your bible (NWT)?
33 answers:
?
2016-04-12 02:03:17 UTC
Yes. I do all the time. I used KJV when studying myself. And I have most Bibles. I have them linked online too at my website and in my groups. The NWT new testament has only be available and in English only since 1950, the whole NWT since 1960. Jehovah's Witnesses used KJV before that and then American Standard and a few other Protestant verses as well. They just recently went out of print with us as they are so easy to get elsewhere and online. Debbie Edited to add: Grey Tower, there are a good many other Bibles that use God's name in the NT but they do it in Hebrew. The sacred name Bibles of the various church of Yahweh do (they spell Jesus Yeshua usually too though). The 2001 online Bible made by neutral scholars and the Nazarene Friends Bible and I think some others also do as well....others use footnotes that the NT texts are places where God's name appears as they are direct quotes of such verses in the OT. Edited again to add: I can't believe someone said the KJV Bible is the Bible Jesus gave. The oldest translation of KJV only dates back to 1611. The current revision of it is still called that, but is from 1769 (according to KJV sources). As far as I know, English was not even in use in Jesus' time, at least not anywhere near the locations he and the apostles preached to in the content of the NT. The lack of accurate knowledge about even the simplest of historical facts simply astounds me about people in religions.
PARTYMARTY
2010-05-17 09:00:54 UTC
Interesting points shows you are a thinker. I hope that mind is not closed where Jehovah and Jesus come into play.

Jehovah is the Supreme Creator of the universe. He is the beginning because nothing existed before Him. He always was and always will be. Hence He is eternal. When you see Alpha and Omega used referring to Him it is absolute, none higher.



Jesus is "The only begotten son of Jehovah." The dictionary says the to "beget" means to procreate as a father or to "sire". This of course means Jesus was created, just as the bible tells us.

Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. Therefore, he is called God’s “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) The firstborn Son also bears the title “the Word.” (John 1:14) Why? Because before being born as a human, he served in heaven as one who spoke for God.

Jesus is the First and Last in the sense that he was the ONLY one or thing Jehovah created by Himself because the Bible tells us that Jehovah allowed Jesus to create all other things.

(Colossians 1:13-16) 13 He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. . .



When we read the verses you mention in the proper context we see that Jehovah and Jesus are 2 different persons and ALL the power that Jesus has was GIVEN him by his Father Jehovah whom he loves very much.
?
2010-05-20 21:49:57 UTC
Jesus Christ is a Divine One also called the "Word". He can be considered a god but he is All Mighty God's Son. However, continually he refers to His (and Our) Heavenly Father as the source of his power.



Here is some scriptures from The Jerusalem Bible Reader's Edition;



John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word:

the Word was with God

and the Word was God.

He was "with" God in the beginning.

Through him all things came to be,



Pretty clear what it is saying; Jesus was the beginning of all creations. Jehovah created him first and everything else created came through him. Logical.



vs. 8

He was not the light,

only a witness to speak for the light.



He wasn't the light (or All Mighty God) but he gave witness of the Father. Logical.



vs. 18

No one has ever seen God;

it is the only Son, who is nearest to the Father's heart,

who has made him known.



True, no was has directly seen God. In fact the scriptures say you could not see him and live. .(Ex. 33:20) Remember when Moses saw the burning bush and God spoke from the bush not appearing directly to him. (Ex. the 3rd chapter) Logical.



The Son (Jesus) is nearest his father (in fact in the call it next to his heart or in the bosom position to his Father)

And what did he do "he made the All Mighty Father known by all his works". Logical!
geessewereabove
2010-05-16 04:58:11 UTC
I am not a JW. BUT it has only about 30 years that some Protestants have been claiming Jesus is God, so they think can get away with "making an "image" of God". We are required to keep our minds blank of what God may look like; as the Second Commandment tells us to do. There are over 550 places in the NT that state that Jesus is Jesus sent by God and "God is God creator of all".

Taking God's name 'in vain' is a sin too. So translators have often replaced their names with "Lord" so one will not know their correct names - to possibly take in vain. Yet with both being given the same title (as "lord's" in England are) it can be confusing. (Look at all the cursing and in-vain naming that is going on today over the TV. It never use to be that way.)'

IF the Bible was translated using their names you would understand better.

Just look at places like:

Matt 27:46 "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus prayed to God.

Matt 26:39 & 42 "... My Father, if this is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Look also at Matthew 20:33, John 4:34, 5:17, 6:37-39, 14:24, Luke 10:16....

People these days will take metaphors and paraphrases and distort them to mean what they want. So make sure it is fact and not one of these one is reading.
bob
2010-05-15 01:03:30 UTC
A "straw man" argument defines a person's point of view inaccurately, and then attacks the misrepresentation. The Watchtower does this by defining the Trinity inaccurately and inadequately. When presenting the Trinity doctrine, the Watchtower melds Trinitarian and Modal concepts, creating an inconsistent and confusing teaching that does not define any formal position. Modal concepts are passed off as the Trinity, yet in the years of Watchtower publications , there is not a single discussion on Modalism. By failing to recognize these different teachings and mixing doctrines, the Watchtower misrepresents the Trinity, making it impossible for a Witness to form an informed opinion.



The Watchtower makes a habit of inaccurately defining the Trinity as "three gods in one".



"Christendom has copied the heathen, pagan nations of Asia in teaching that God is a trinity, three Gods in one Person." Watchtower 1962 Apr 15 p.235



"The disgusting idolatry of the religions of Christendom and pagandom has been set aside by Jehovah's restored people. … Their worship is not distributed to three gods in one, the so-called godhead of some mysterious Trinity, but they are united as the one people who worship the one God, Jehovah. Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 p.23



This is not the Trinity; it is not taught that there are "three Gods in one". Rather the statement at Deuteronomy 6:4 is accepted that "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." There is one true God by nature. That true God exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Accurate discussion of the Trinity cannot occur without separation of the Ontological and Economic elements, yet the Watchtower never mentions these concepts



Pastor Russell's Adventist influences had mixed views about the Trinity. At first, Russell's associates and early influential Watch Tower contributors were primarily Trinitarian, including Nelson Barbour and John Paton. George Storrs believed that Jesus was God, but believed that the relationship of the Father and the Son was a mystery, and would not characterize his belief as either Arian or Trinitarian.



The first assistant editor of Zion's Watch Tower was J. H. Paton, a Trinitarian. He wrote the 1880 Watchtower book The Day Dawn. Russell did not start printing articles disputing the Trinity until after Paton left the magazine's staff.



Influential anti-trinitarians include former Baptist Minister Henry Grew from the 1820's and George Stetson, pastor of the Allegheny Advent Christian Church, from whom it appears Russell based his eventual stance. The Watchtower first promoted its Arian viewpoint in the Watchtower 1882 Jun p.369-377. Proclaimers p.123.
Noble and famous
2010-05-17 01:48:32 UTC
How can one put this ,with out offending another. The last thing I want is to put down ,or discourage you on your studies of the word. Please don't take it wrong.

when I read the parts of the bible which you put down on your question, It was as clear as day, God is the Alpha and Omega and Christ is his son. He is seated to the right of the father. Jesus is the Lord of lords here on earth but in Heaven and earth Jesus acknowledges God.

Things are so clear and simple if you let the words direct your spirit . So many are letting what others say influence what they read. As It is written , come to me as a child , clear your mind and read like its the first time you read it.
?
2010-05-21 09:23:11 UTC
There is only one God. Jesus is the SON of the almighty God. Think it over
ATS
2010-05-17 04:58:58 UTC
Some thirty years ago I was told it was extremely hard to show JW's the error they believe. They become so indoctrinated that even the simplest evidence is pushed aside. In some ways I feel sorry for those who believe Christ was created, it takes away the enormity of the Cross, the Sacrifice, the cost, and sin and the Law are also brought low.

Sin took the life of God, the law demanded it, what greater depths can one contemplate the cross than from this.
Ernie
2010-05-14 19:11:11 UTC
Keep in mind all the JW's that answered your question are not born again, so they have no revelation knowledge of what you shared, even from their own bible. They only understand naturally, and cannot perceive spiritual things. 1 Corinthians 2:14 proves they don't understand the word of God because they are not born again, and apply a natural meaning to what God said. They are blind and deceived concerning the bible.
Uncle Thesis
2010-05-16 07:23:45 UTC
Trying to prove Jehovah and Jesus are the same by referring to titles is one very weak argumentation.

You would have me believe that the President of the USA and the President of Russia must be the same person because they are both called President.
BaC Helen
2010-05-14 19:38:27 UTC
It is next to impossible to get any sense to JWs. They are so conditioned by their organizational leaders and they have doctrine in lies.



When I asked some of these questions from some ladies who came to talk to me, they just avoided real answers and time to time said " This is what it says but that is not what it means " So confusing.



Clearly they have two Gods and their belief system is polytheistic. If they believe there is only one true God, they must think Jesus is a false god
בַר אֱנָשׁ (bar_enosh)
2010-05-13 12:51:37 UTC
They are there in the NWT because they belong there.



None of them prove what you assert.



Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny that Jesus is a "Mighty God." He is the divine Son of God.



We say that he is not the Almighty God, who is his Father, Jehovah.



Jesus himself said -- in the NWT and in all other translations -- that the "only true God" is his Father, not himself. (John 17:3)



"God is supreme over Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 11:3, Good News Bible, published by the American Bible Society



Please read the whole Bible in its context, not just a few random verses.
debbiepittman
2010-05-13 12:20:32 UTC
King of kings and lord of lords are simply titles referring to any king who has kings under him. The king of Babylon though pagan is so called. Daniel 2:37 KJV37Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.



Being called such does not make you God Almighty.



Nor does being called elohim. Moses is twice called Elohim (God) in the scriptures. Exodus 4:16 and 7:1. Same as Jesus. Neither are "false gods" or are they God Almighty.



Jesus was first and last of many things...1st and last spirit son to be born as a human baby, first and last one Jehovah directly created, 1st and last Jehovah himself resurrected, etc. Again a title that does not indicate they are the same person.



Simple.



Debbie
a_measured_brush
2010-05-13 17:24:08 UTC
There are no "hardcore" Jehovah's Witnesses, or moderates, o radicals, or conservative, or progressive, or whatever. One identifying mark of the true religion is unity. Though we are each unique as individuals there is only one faith. Your questions are nothing new, or surprising, really. You don't want to read the Bible first and just believe in what it says. Instead you want to listen to what some man tells you to believe and then you look in the Bible to try and twist the scriptures to support what you want to believe, and then you ignore any scripture which does not agree with you. This tactic is nothing new, even the Devil misapplied scriptures , as he did when tempting Jesus:



(Matthew 4:5-6) 5 Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple 6 and said to him: “If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’”



(Deuteronomy 10:17) 17 For Jehovah YOUR God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the God great, mighty and fear-inspiring, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe,

“And the Lord of lords.” Or, “and Lord of the lords.” Heb., wa·’Adho·neh′ (pl. to denote excellence) ha·’adho·nim′; Gr., Ky′ri·os ton ky·ri′on; Lat., Do′mi·nus do·mi·nan′ti·um, “Lord of dominating ones.”

(Revelation 17:14) 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him [will do so].”

(Revelation 19:15-16) . 15 And out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.



First of all if you compare these two scriptures in the context of the entire verse there are two differences. Both Jehovah and Jesus is called “Lord of Lords” , however:

1)Jehovah is called also “God of Gods”, which is a title never applied to Jesus in the Bible, and

2)Jesus is called “King of kings” which is a title never applied to Jehovah in the Bible

3)Then Jesus shares this title with two human Kings: Artaxerxes, and Nebuchadnezzar.

(Ezra 7:12) 12 “Ar·ta·xerx′es, the king of kings, to Ez′ra the priest, the copyist of the law of the God of the heavens: [Peace] be perfected. And now

(Ezekiel 26:7) 7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Here I am bringing against Tyre Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon from the north, a king of kings, with horses and war chariots and cavalrymen and a congregation, even a multitudinous people.

(Daniel 2:36-37) 36 “This is the dream, and its interpretation we shall say before the king. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, you to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, and the strength and the dignity,



If you are claiming that the same title means the same person then is Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar also Jehovah?

Really the titles of Jehovah and Jesus are not the same if you compare the entire phrases instead of just picking out three words out of context, as you are doing. The title of Jehovah is “ the God of gods and the Lord of lords”; and the title of Jesus is “ Lord of lords and King of kings”.

You didn't mention the Holy Spirit. Is it also called “Lord of lords”? You didn't mention the word “Trinity” but that is what you are trying to suggest that there is some support for in the Bible, right? Why do you have to resort to taking words out of context and misapplying them? Just show me “Trinity” in the Bible if you think it is there.

Perhaps you have a good explanation of why the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible but it was taught in many of the ancient pagan religions?



Babylon the temple erected to the god Belus is reported as having been surmounted by three statues, namely, that of Bel (or Bel-Merodach), his mother Rhea (Semiramis), and Bel-Merodach’s wife, Juno or Beltis (Zer-panîtu)—this according to the ancient Greek historian Ctesias. According to the later Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, at one period in Babylon the religious triad consisted of two goddesses and the son, namely, Hera (the Roman Juno), Rhea (or Semiramis) and Zeus (= Merodach, Nimrod)..Another triad was that of Sin (the moon-god) and Shamash (the sun-god) and Ishtar—the rulers of the zodiac.

Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, in Babylonian Life and History, says:

The demons and devils that made the Babylonian’s life a misery to him were many, but the forms of most of them and their evil powers were well known. Most of all he feared the Seven Evil Spirits, who were the creators of all evil. . . . As there were triads of gods, so there were triads of devils, for example, Labartu, Labasu and Akhkhazu. The first harmed little children, the second caused the quaking sickness, and the third turned the face of a man yellow and black. Another triad comprised Lîlû, Lîlîtu and Ardat Lîlī. . . . The Babylonians . . . went to the priest, who often assumed the character of a god, and who exorcised the devils by reciting incantations, . . .—Pages 146, 147 (1925 edition). See also The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edition of 1955, Volume 1, page 373.

In Egypt frequently the god was represented as married to a goddess who bore him a son, “thus forming a divine triad or trinity in which the father, moreover, was not always the chief, contenting himself on occasion with the role of prince consort, while the principal deity of the locality remained the goddess.” (New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1968, p. 10

The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth. The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

Jesus spoke of God both his father and his God, and as being greater than him:

(Mark 15:34) 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice: “E′li, E′li, la′ma sa·bach·tha′ni?” which means, when translated: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

(John 20:17) 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”

(Revelation 3:2) 2 Become watchful, and strengthen the things remaining that were ready to die, for I have not found your deeds fully performed before my God.

(Revelation 3:12) 12 “‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.
X
2010-05-13 12:59:28 UTC
NOT ONE of those scriptures you mentioned indicates in any way that Jesus is God.



Revelation 3:14 clearly states that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God", proving that God is the one who created and brought Jesus into existence......MEANING: Jesus is NOT God.



Even for the "I hate Jehovah's Witnesses" cult.....that was a weak try on your part.



*** No amount of pretzel-twisting of the scriptures by the asker or anyone else will get the Bible to say something that it doesn't say, i.e. "Jesus is God". All the asker does is babble on that we take a scripture out of context when we quote it exactly as stated. It really is sad how feeble their efforts are in trying to distort the Bible.
Mindy
2010-05-13 14:05:14 UTC
Both Debbie and bar_enosh have given you fantastic answers to your question that are in complete harmony with the scriptures.



Your asking this question reminds me of the person mentioned in the Bible at Luke 10:25-37 where it reads in part:



"Now, look! a certain man versed in the Law rose up, to TEST him (Jesus) out"

~Luke 10:25



"But, wanting to prove HIMSELF righteous, the man said to Jesus" ~Luke 10:29



Anyway, not one iota of what you stated from the NWT (or any other translation) goes against the FACT that Jesus Christ IS a Mighty God but not Almighty God the Father (Jehovah).



Just for fun, here's a few other scriptures that individuals from the church's of Christendom try to use in their attempt to somehow prove the false claim that Jesus Christ is God the Almighty:



#1)

John 1:1

View the following 3 minute & 17 second educational video that is helping THOUSANDS of sincere hearted people worldwide in understanding the TRUE meaning of what the apostle John was conveying in his Gospel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdMV3PIEUco&NR=1

{Real Truth about John 1:1}



#2)

John 8:58

Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971) reads:

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·go′ ei·mi′].’”



The New English Bible (1970), King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942), Good News Bible—Today’s English Version (1976), The Jerusalem Bible (1966), Alexander Jones, general editor and The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition (1970) ALL read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title.



Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to THEIR rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am”.



However, in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures the latter part of John 8:58 reads:



“Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”



The SAME idea that is in the NWT is conveyed by the wording in The Bible—An American Translation (1935), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, A New Translation of the Bible (1934), James Moffatt, The New Testament—A Translation in the Language of the People (1937; as printed in 1950), Charles B. Williams, and The Simple English Bible—New Testament, American Edition (1981).



Which rendering AGREES WITH THE CONTEXT? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying HAD TO DO WITH AGE, NOT IDENTITY. Jesus’ reply LOGICALLY dealt with his AGE, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·go′ ei·mi′ as a title to the holy spirit.

Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go′ ei·mi′] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.



#3)

Philippians 2:5, 6

King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942) reads:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

(Catholic Challoner-Douay Version (1750; as printed in 1941) has the same wording. The Jerusalem Bible (1966), Alexander Jones, general editor reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”)



However, in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures the latter portion of that passage reads:

“who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon′], namely, that he should be equal to God.”



(Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971), The New English Bible (1970), Good News Bible—Today’s English Version (1976) and The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition (1970) convey the SAME thought as NWT.)



Which thought agrees WITH THE CONTEXT? Verse 5 counsels CHRISTIANS to IMITATE Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could THEY (Christians) be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but THEIR RIGHT, “to be equal with God”? Surely not!!! However, they CAN imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (New World Translation / Compare Genesis 3:5)



Such a translation also AGREES with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is GREATER than I.”

—John 14:28.



The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa′zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon′] 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.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.



#4)

1 John 5:7, 8

King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942) reads:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

(Catholic Challoner-Douay Version (1750; as printed in 1941) also includes this Trinitarian passage.)



However, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures DOES NOT include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.”

(Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971), The New English Bible (1970), Good News Bible—Today’s English Version (1976), The Jerusalem Bible (1966), Alexander Jones, general editor and The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition (1970) also LEAVE OUT the Trinitarian passage.)



Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote and I quote:

“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words WERE NOT written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had NO RIGHTFUL CLAIM.”

—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654. [Caps mine]



#5)

John 10:30

When saying, “I and the Father are ONE,” did Jesus mean that they were EQUAL? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may ALL be ONE,” and he added, “that they may be one EVEN AS WE ARE ONE.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” IN ALL THESE INSTANCES. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples DO NOT ALL become part of the Trinity... do they?



But they absolutely DO come to share A ONENESS OF PURPOSE with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that UNITES God and Christ.



#6)

John 20:28

Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971) reads:

“Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”



There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be IN HARMONY with Jesus’ own quotation from the Psalms in which POWERFUL MEN, JUDGES, were addressed as “gods” (John 10:34, 35, Revised Standard Version; Ps. 82:1-6).



Of course, Christ occupies a position FAR HIGHER than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (New World Translation) Jesus is referred to as “the only-begotten god” (See also The Emphasised Bible (1897), Joseph B. Rotherham and The Bible in Living English (published in 1972), Steven T. Byington).



Isaiah 9:6 (Revised Standard Version) also prophetically describes Jesus as “Mighty God,” but NOT as the Almighty God. All of this is IN HARMONY with Jesus’ being described as “a god,” or “divine,” at John 1:1 (New World Translation and The Bible—An American Translation).



The CONTEXT helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus’ death, Thomas had heard Jesus’ prayer in which he addressed his Father as “the ONLY true God.” (John 17:3, Revised Standard Version) AFTER Jesus’ resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, INCLUDING THOMAS, in which he had said: “I am ascending . . . to my God and your God.” (John 20:17, Revised Standard Version) AFTER recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated:

“These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31, Revised Standard Version) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas’ exclamation that Jesus is himself “the only true God” or that Jesus is a Trinitarian “God the Son,” he needs to CAREFULLY LOOK AGAIN at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the CONCLUSION that is CLEARLY STATED by the apostle John (vs. 31).



Jesus is not God Almighty, never has been, never will be. At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities as Hebrews 1:3 shows. There is ONLY one true ALMIGHTY GOD and that is Jehovah... no one else, not Jesus Christ or anyone or anything. Jesus Christ being called "a god" (hopefully you learned something from the John 1:1 video) does not make him a FALSE god, that's ridiculous (and is getting old... try using something else please), it simply means that he is NOT the one true ALMIGHTY God. Capeesh? None of this is hard to understand? Dude, just let Jehovah himself sort it out in the end if whether or not YOUR beliefs about him are correct OR his Witnesses.





http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_04.htm

{Should You Believe in the Trinity?}



;-)



Ciao
SUNSHINE
2010-05-13 14:51:40 UTC
QUESTION: Is Jesus the "Alpha and the Omega"?



No, the scripture in question is not referring to Jesus but his father Jehovah.



Further reading:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/ao-speaker-confusion.html



similar question (For the Witness view scroll down BAR ANERGES)

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100406053803AAVd94q
Richard
2010-05-13 13:01:20 UTC
Let's start with Isa 9: 6 since you brought it up. If Jesus is God, why wouldn't he be refered to as the King of Peace Could it be that he's is in a lesser position like a king's son is, and called a prince. Why not call him almighty God, not just mighty? We don't doubt that Jesus is mighty, but is not the Almighty.Your own Bible version acknowleges that. He is Eternal father because he enables us to have the prospect of everlasting life due to his ransom sacrifice
pugjw9896
2010-05-14 01:27:52 UTC
Jesus has the SAME qualities as his father...

That does not mean he IS his father...

1. There is only ONE God...Almighty God...the term god being a title...Jesus is mighty but is not ALMIGHTY

2. Of course, Jesus is in charge of angels...he has been given the authority by his father.

3. Jesus was the offspring of David.. Almighty God [ Jehovah] never was

4, The term "god" is a title, not a name...Jesus is "a" god...so is Satan...it means...in a spiritual form...



(2 Corinthians 4:4) among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

Did you not know this scripture?

Quote " there has been a son given to us" BY WHO? it has to be Jehovah

And WHO spoke out of haven when Jesus was baptised...If it was himself, as you claim, he is a split personality...but it was not...it was his father, Jehovah

(Mark 9:7) And a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud: “This is my Son, the beloved; listen to him.”

He said...listen to HIM...not...listen to ME.

indicating two individuals...

And WHO created Jesus...the firstborn of creation...this is NOT the firstborn of Mary...

(Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Many sons are the 'image' of their father...nothing strange in this.

(Proverbs 8:22-31) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25 Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26 when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.

So Jesus was in existence from th very beginning....before even the universe and before even Satan turned bad.

thats why the scripture here says (Genesis 1:26) And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.”

LET US...MAKE...IN OUR...LIKENESS... PLURAL...



And finally. good advice...



(1 Timothy 6:4) he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions,

(2 Timothy 2:23) Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.



I simply answered to benefit other readers...
2010-05-13 18:59:12 UTC
I am not a JW but the Lord Jesus Christ is not the LORD God Almighty. Jesus is the son of God and has manifested the power of his Heavenly Father to us. He is to be given a name that is above every name because he represents his Father to us. This does not mean that he is the LORD God.



The confusion in all of this is the trinitarian teachings of the catholic chuirch which were not founded in the word of God. So much so that 'a Latin scholar of low repute' is claimed to have added the pro-trinitarian verse in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV. This verse is no longer in the text of most modern Bibles except as a marginal note.



The so called Apostles Creed taken from what the Scriptures actually say does not have any trinitarian element.
Ratchet
2010-05-16 17:03:03 UTC
Your arguments are too weak. Exodus 7:1 calls Moses a God, Psalms 82:6 the judges were called gods. Do these make them God? They are not false gods either?



You need to do more honing for your arguments
ART'd
2010-05-18 15:48:43 UTC
Before JESUS came to earth HE is with the FATHER in heaven..Jn:1:1 What is HIS nature GOD or human of course GOD, when He came to earth He became human Jn. 1:14;Fil.2:7, when He returned in heaven after His resurrection, is HE still human or what..of course GOD because that HIS nature, Remember this when He was on earth HE is human because that was HIS role, when HE returned in heaven HE went back to HIS own nature that is GOD. Nature is different from role. JESUS is GOD

I Jn.5:20;Mt.1:23;I Cor.2:8;Fil.2:6;Heb.1:8;Col.2:9. JESUS is human I Tim.2:5;Jn.11:35;Fil.2:7 etc.etc.etc.
Smiling JW™
2010-05-14 06:23:55 UTC
Quite a bit has been said on proper context and understanding. But I will answer simply there these is a difference between LORD and Lord. Jehovah's title is LORD but Jesus it titled Lord so positioning Christ lower than God. Just as Jehovah is God, capital G, others such as Satan can be known as a god (2 Corinthians 4:4 King James)
cashelmara
2010-05-14 10:09:20 UTC
The sect now known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses was started by Charles Taze Russell.

Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the annihilation of unsaved people (a doctrine he picked up from the Adventists), the non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914.

When 1914 had come and gone, with no Jesus in sight, Russell modified his teaching.

Since the Bible, as preserved through the centuries, did not support the peculiar doctrines of the Witnesses,Nathan Homer Knorr chose an anonymous committee to produce the New World Translation, which is used by no sect other than the Witnesses. By means of former Witnesses, the names of the five members of the translation committee eventually came to light. Four of the five members completely lack credentials to qualify them as Bible translators, and the fifth member studied non-biblical Greek for only about two years.

The New World Translation was produced because it buttresses Witnesses’ beliefs through obscure or inaccurate renderings. For example, to prove that Jesus was only a creature, not God, the New World Translation’s rendering of John 1:1 concludes this way: "and the Word was a god" [italics added]. Every other translation, Catholic and Protestant—not to mention the Greek original—has "and the Word was God."
Frank
2010-05-14 07:06:10 UTC
The reason why these verses are still in the NWT is because those who tampered with the bible missed quite a few verses which now also require a little tampering to make them consistent with the part which had been tampered with.



There are many inconsistencies in the NWT but when we, who are approached at our doors, bring these verses to their attention they will always go back and speak to their leaders and be fobbed off with a 'reasonable' explanation. It is unusual, for those that are challenged, to come back to your door again (because the leader does not want them to be challenged any further). They are sent elsewhere and someone else will call on you next time.



Those at the head of this organization MUST know that their version of the bible is corrupt otherwise they would not be so careful to keep these inconsistencies as quiet as they can. They cannot just reprint the whole things once these inconsistencies are found and pointed out because there are too many copies of the current one in people homes and a new (further doctored) one would just highlight what is really going on.



We should pray for J.Ws. seriously, because they are very mislead and need God more than they can possibly imagine.
Ginosko92
2010-05-14 07:11:10 UTC
Andrew you responded to Bar-Enosh and said:



"if what you assert is fact and Jehovah Witnesses "do not deny" Jesus is "A" God. Then you must believe he is a false God as St. Paul states there is but "One" God?"



Since the FATHER is the ONLY TRUE God according to Jesus' OWN words in John 17:3, the question is what kind of God is Jesus?
infowars.com/wnd.com
2010-05-16 06:56:22 UTC
luke 10:7 / 6:46 most people pick and choose what they like regardless of clear evidence contrary wise to what they presently believe ?

it takes time to change.
mobiledj_1
2010-05-14 14:57:15 UTC
How can Jesus be God?

That's like a Dad being a Grandfather or no wait a Mom being a niece, wait bad example,umm

My cat being a feline... there see...

God is one just like these things I mentioned.

See you are wrong.
Groo the Fox
2010-05-13 14:08:26 UTC
I do not know why JW deny him because it is mentioned A LOT in the bible, first of all his name means God with us, and Mary was told by God to give him this name.

matthew 1:26



Colossians 1:15

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.



john 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.



1 Corinthians 12:3 No one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.



The word Lord is KURIOS in Greek, which is a special word that means God!



there are many more verses like Romans 9:5, John 14:8-9, John 10:30, John 10:11, John 10:23
grandpa
2010-05-14 18:26:33 UTC
short answer:



gotta read it in CONTEXT. dont just yank a verse out of the entire paragraph, and

say it proves a specific point.



here are your answers, and i would guess you are not going to read them. but, some others just might:





1- with whom was Jehovah talking in Gen 1:26?



Et ait Deus: “Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram;



[yep- right off the vatican website: how's your latin? ]



http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html





2- who did this act? Gen 2:7



וייצר *יהוה* אלהים את־האדם עפר מן־האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃



what was his /name/? [ see the asterisks ]



this is the leningrad codex; but i am sure you recognise it. your hebrew is up to par,

right?





3- mentioning name: remember 'who's on first?' bud abbott & lou costello?

what's in a name? let's see. does god talk to himself?



a- Psalm 110:1



לדוד מזמור נאם * יהוה * ׀ לאדני שב לימיני עד־אשית איביך הדם לרגליך׃



now, the latin is:



David. PSALMUS. Dixit Dominus Domino meo: “ Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum ”.



who is talking to whom? who is sitting on whose hand? sumthin strange, if we take the ro cath way of 'changing' what was holy scripture.



b- matthew 6:9



Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum,



or the original greek of the congregations, altho mat wrote it in hebrew first:



ουτως ουν προσευχεσθε υμεις πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις αγιασθητω το ονομα σου

[ textus receptus of 1550, but you likely saw that as it is not like tischendorff or westcott! ]



this is for the issue, let your TITLE be sanctified? let your POSITION be sanctified.



-- nomen tuum -- -- το ονομα σου -- is that not /name/? hm? what is god's * name * ?



c- here is the third part of this point: Isaiah 42:8



אני * יהוה * הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא־אתן ותהלתי לפסילים׃



but latin is:



Ego Dominus: hoc est nomen meum; et gloriam meam alteri non dabo et laudem meam sculptilibus.



ego dominus? that is not HWHY . and it is not a name. unless you are in a james bond movie [domino, remember ? ]



let's see what else is there:



reina valera:



Yo * Jehová: * este es mi nombre; y á otro no daré mi gloria, ni mi alabanza á esculturas.



youngs /literal/ translation:



I [am] * Jehovah * , this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.



N A M E is not title, or position or indicator. besides, lord ? that's me. senor. thats me in spanish. in mexico, they call me / hey senor?/





4- this is the last one. dont want to get you tired trying to read.



Heb 6:16 jesus is a priest between us & god

John 6:56-7 jesus is in us; are we god? jesus was sent forth. as an apostle

Heb 3:1-3 jesus is the apostle of the ONE who sent him.

1Cor 15: 20-28 jesus is returning to his father the kingdom after he completed as task

1 Cor 11:2-4



that's enough.



adios



you need a bible study.



not a /church doctrine/ study.



a BIBLE study.



adios



gramps
Godsproblemchild
2010-05-13 21:15:58 UTC
Lets clear this up once and for all...Jesus is Jehovah. The LORD, Almighty God, One with the Father and the Spirit, JHVH, JHWH, Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace.

This knowledge is given by the Holy Spirit and without him they can not understand.
2010-05-13 15:47:50 UTC
Truth Defender is correct as usual. None of those texts in any way prove that Jesus is Jehovah. His point about the anti-JW cult is also an excellent one. A handful of us bolder witnesses have become spiritual warriors, making it our business to expose the lies of this group. I am happy to be a part of that select group. Yes, fighting off the attacks of the apostate hordes and pagan minions is a tough job, but somebody has got to do it.
2010-05-13 11:35:48 UTC
This reminds me of something my grandmother once told me, dont look a dead man in the ear.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...