Is Jesus God?

[NWL]

Oeste and I had the "prototokos" conversation earlier in the thread or perhaps it was another similar thread. Instead of studying the topic for himself, as the scriptures encourage us to do, he simply takes the word of those who share his belief. (Yes, I studied the topic for myself for several years without doctrinal bias).

The Greek word "firstborn" (prototokos) is used 130 times in the Bible and LXX. Its meaning is clearly stated in its literal translation. It always indicates a beginning or generation of something or someone that was not in existence before. Preeminence is a secondary definition that can be added to its primary meaning, but the term never implies preeminence exclusively.

Additionally, the phrase"the firstborn of" occurs over 30 times in the Bible and in every instance the acceptation is the same-- the firstborn is the very first allotment of the group. The "firstborn of the sheep" is a sheep who was born or existed before the others from one sheep (Gen 4:4), the "firstborn of the animals" is an animal born or in essence first created before all the others, etc. (Neh.10:36). The firstborn of every creature means the first being created before any creatures.

Some people throw logic out the window when its comes to God and Christ, they assume that because Jesus is Almighty it somehow makes words used to describe him void of their meaning, its sad really.

Thank you for explaining it again. Too many forums, online articles and other religious material have the habit of stating that prototokos means preeminence over its primary temporal meaning, it's insane and infurating at the same time. So many people like Yoshua and Oeste are fooled by putting blind faith in them.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[james2ko]

Some people throw logic out the window when its comes to God and Christ, they assume that because Jesus is Almighty it somehow makes words used to describe him void of their meaning, its sad really.

Thank you for explaining it again. Too many forums, online articles and other religious material have the habit of stating that prototokos means preeminence over its primary temporal meaning, it's insane and infurating at the same time. So many people like Yoshua and Oeste are fooled by putting blind faith in them.

Thanks for the reply.

It can certainly be frustrating at times. But I've learned that we will very rarely, if ever, convince those of whom we are discussing a topic. My hope is to present simple, logical biblical and other evidence in order to plant seeds and encourage further study in those who are lurking.

 

[NWL]

It can certainly be frustrating at times. But I've learned that we will very rarely, if ever, convince those of whom we are discussing a topic. My hope is to present simple, logical biblical and other evidence in order to plant seeds and encourage further study in those who are lurking.

It's true, however, I don't always do it for the people who I speak one on one with as forums such as these get far more guest then they do users. I hope and have seen, at times, that those readers minds can change by the discussions people such as ourselves have with others, as they eventually see that the things mainstream Christendom teaches has been twisted.

I like your reasoning ability and style, look forward to your future replies on threads.

 

[james2ko]

It's true, however, I don't always do it for the people who I speak one on one with as forums such as these get far more guest then they do users. I hope and have seen, at times, that those readers minds can change by the discussions people such as ourselves have with others, as they eventually see that the things mainstream Christendom teaches has been twisted.

I like your reasoning ability and style, look forward to your future replies on threads.

Welcome to the forum. The feeling is mutual. Just so you are aware, I am not nor was I ever a JW nor do I agree with all of their doctrines. I live by 1 Th 5:21 and hold onto what is good and true.

I don't reject or accept a belief simply based on their affiliation with an earthly organization. I may agree with some Protestant, Mormon, Messianic and other groups doctrines, if they are biblically and logically supported. It drives my patient Pastor crazy, but I think he's learned to listen and ignore me.

 

[NWL]

From reading some of your previous post I gathered that you weren't a JW. May I ask what differences do you have with JW doctrine? Also, out of curiosity, what belief's of the Mormons do you adhere to?

 

[james2ko]

From reading some of your previous post I gathered that you weren't a JW. May I ask what differences do you have with JW doctrine? Also, out of curiosity, what belief's of the Mormons do you adhere to?

Stay tuned and these questions will eventually be answered. Meanwhile, let's focus on getting the truth out about this particular doctrine.

 

[Not Bob]

Anyone who can read a bit of the N.T. in the Christian Bible should clearly
see that Jesus isn't God.
However members of one of the largest Christian religions don't seem to read
the Bible. They let Clergy to that for them
Kind of like letting someone else eat your food for you.

Also anyone who can read a bit of the OT as well.
Numbers 23:19 couldn't make it any more clear.
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither Son of Man, that he should repent"

 

[Yoshua]

We know in scripture that Jesus is created by Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 as they all state the same thing, that Jesus was the first thing created. We know God was obviously the one who created him as Jesus refers to God as his Father, and himself as a Son, just like a human father created his Son and calls him a Son. Jesus states regarding the Father "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57), therefore it becomes clear where Jesus gets his life from. Hebrews 1:1,2 then states:

"[God] Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.." (Hebrews 1:1,2)

Thus is becomes clear that God created his son and then created the rest of the universe through him, 1 Cor 8:6 parallels Hebrews 1:1,2, and further states Jesus is from the Father with all things being created through Jesus:

"..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him. ." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Hi NWL,

I think it is so fast for you to conclude that Jesus is created, not yet. I’m asking if where in the Bible that teaches Jesus is created. It is clear in the text, it says :

1.) for by Him
2.) all things were created by Him and for Him (v.16).
3.) He is before all things (v.17).

Now, how can He (Jesus) be a creature (created being) because everything was created for Him, in Him? Does it make sense or logical?
Then, is Jesus a firstborn or first created?

Col. 1:15-20 (NWT)
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 on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him+ and for him.
17 Also, he is before all other things,+ and by means of him all other things were made to exist,
18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation.+ He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,+ so that he might become the one who is first in all things;
19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him,+
20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things+ by making peace through the blood+ he shed on the torture stake,* whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.

 

[Yoshua]

Another thing, did you see how the NWT inserted the word “other” to change its meaning. Is there a Greek word for “other”? If there is none, then why the Watchtower obviously added “other” after the firstborn of all creation? Kindly take a look with the KJV version.

Col. 1:15-20 (KJV)
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Rev. 3:14, the word beginning means first in position and not creation. Jesus is the authority or cause of the creation. It is clear with John 1:3.
John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

 

[Yoshua]

Of course not, but how could anyone understand Jesus was born from the grave or think that somehow me stating that he's the firstborn of it is me implying he is?

Again the term firstborn carries the meaning that you are part of the group you are firsborn over, i've already stated that it doesn't have to refer to somthing being born of that group but only that you are PART of that group. For example I'm can't be the firstborn of your family Yoshua because i'm not a part of your family. If someone was to say "NWL is the firstborn of Yoshua family" people would assume that i'm related to you, since being firstborn of something implies you are part of the group your firstborn in. Another example is me saying asking you to fill in the blank, "the _____ is the firstborn of a litter of kittens"? You no doubt can instantly understand the blank word is kitten/cat, as it obvious that to be the firstborn of a litter of kittens you must be a kitten. Jesus is called "the firstborn of the dead", anyone could deduce that Jesus was either dead or is dead by that statement, since again, to be firstborn of a group you must be part of it, or in Jesus case "been part of it". Likewise, Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation", thus Jesus must be part of creation to be labelled firstborn of it, my reasoning is undeniable.

There is no problem with the term “firstborn” but not “first created.” It can mean the first born child in a family just an example in Luke 2:7. It can can also mean "pre-eminence."

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Trinitarians refuse to accept that prototokos means firstborn in the sense of time as it denies the trinity, instead they assume the other sense of prototokos, the sense of being preeminent. My argument looks beyond the differences of the two usages of the word and focuses on the principle of the word. Thus my reasoning helps show that Jesus MUST be part of the creation he's firstborn of (regardless of the sense of prototokos). Once one see's that Jesus must be part of creation, then it becomes clearer to see that the word prototokos actually means that Jesus is the firstborn in both the sense. The same way a firstborn son to his father is the first in position and age(creation) in regards to his household, is Jesus the firstborn in age(creation) and position in regards to creation.

It is not about trinity after all. It is about the context itself about prototokos. Did Paul say Jesus is first created or firstborn?

Then if you say He is first created, how come Paul does not say Jesus is first created?

Thanks

 

[james2ko]

Another thing, did you see how the NWT inserted the word “other” to change its meaning. Is there a Greek word for “other”? If there is none, then why the Watchtower obviously added “other” after the firstborn of all creation? Kindly take a look with the KJV version.

Col. 1:15-20 (KJV)
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Rev. 3:14, the word beginning means first in position and not creation. Jesus is the authority or cause of the creation. It is clear with John 1:3.
John 1:3

Every single translation adds words to clarify the meaning of a term or passage, yes even the KJV. The term "other" simply clarifies (not change) the meaning of Paul's thought. For instance, your reasoning would suggest Eve was not alive because it states she is the mother of all living (Gen 3:20). She was not the mother of herself or Adam so the text should read "all others living".

But it does not because it is understood she and Adam are obviously excluded from the total category of living things. Likewise, Christ was the Creator of "all things" so the phrase “all things” would exclude Himself and the One who created Him--The Father.

I admit the insertion of "other" wasn't necessary. But based on the Genesis example and other passages supporting the Christ created doctrine, it simply clarifies the meaning Paul was trying to convey.

 

[james2ko]

There is no problem with the term “firstborn” but not “first created.” It can mean the first born child in a family just an example in Luke 2:7. It can can also mean "pre-eminence."Thanks

The term prototokos never means pre-eminence exclusively. The definition of the term will not allow it.

Strong's tells us it was derived from two words. " Protos" [g4413] which means " foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all)". Interestingly enough, this is the root of our English word "prototype". The second term, "tikto", is defined as: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.

Every single time it is used in scripture, there is always a first created or first in existence component attached to the term. The term for pre-eminence alone is "proteuo". Also used to identify Christ's status (vs 18). But notice Paul describes Christ becoming "proteuo-preeminent" AFTER his incarnation, death, and resurrection. Prior to His incarnation, He was the Father's first created (prototokos) spirit being (Col 1:15). In other words, Paul is not saying Christ is one or the other, he is identifying Christ as both!

 

[NWL]

Rev. 3:14, the word beginning means first in position and not creation. Jesus is the authority or cause of the creation. It is clear with John 1:3.
John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

Actually no, the Greek word arche in Revelation 3:14 is not in regarding Jesus being first in position. Many people when researching Rev 3:14 see translations that render the word "acrhe" to mean ruler or source/originator. I'm not quite sure which one you refer to when you say "first in position" as you allude to both of the meanings -I think- in your response, for reasons unknown.

In regard to acrhe meaning source/originator. As I've expressed in previous post, scripture makes it clear that it was the Father who was the beginner of creation, Hebrews 1:1,2 with 1 Cor 8:6 allude to this.

(Hebrews 1:1,2) “..God..in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe..”

(1 Cor 8:6) “..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live..”

Both of these scriptures say that all things came from the Father but through Jesus, thus any scriptures such as Rev 3:14 along with other verses such as Col 1:15 and John 1:3 which seem to show Jesus as the main character in creation should be taken in context of Hebrews 1:1,2 which shows who the actual originator/cause of creation is, the Father. Therefore, it is is completely contradictory to say that Jesus is the source of creation, as John 1:3 says, "All things came into being through Him", and NOT "All things came into being [from him]", it is the Father from whom all things came (1 Cor 8:6).

In relation to arche being understood as "ruler". John the writer of Revelation, never uses the Greek word arche to mean ruler, but always, ‘beginning’, he does so over 22 times in each and every one of his books. Other bible writers use arche broadly but never John, thus we must be consistent and view the usage of arche in Rev 3:14 and understand it the same way John always used it. Moreover, even if we were to take other bible writers usages of the word arche into consideration in reference to its meaning we come out with the same result. This is because in every instance where arche is followed by a genitive expression in the NT it always denotes a beginning or first part of something, Rev 3:14 is a prime example of this and thus again consistency must be applied. Digging even deeper, whenever Bible writers intend to use arche with the understanding of ruler-ship, they always use words signifying kingship, authority or such like words, pick any instance of ruler/arche in the NT and you'll see this to be true, yet, these words are completely lacking in Rev 3:14. Therefore it is completely incorrect to say that ruler is the intended meaning in Rev 3:14.

Understanding all of the above points in their entirety shows that the only translation of the word acrhe in Rev 3:14 is that Jesus was the literal beginning of creation. Could you show anything to the contrary?

 

[NWL]

I think it is so fast for you to conclude that Jesus is created, not yet. I’m asking if where in the Bible that teaches Jesus is created. It is clear in the text, it says :

1.) for by Him
2.) all things were created by Him and for Him (v.16).
3.) He is before all things (v.17).

Now, how can He (Jesus) be a creature (created being) because everything was created for Him, in Him? Does it make sense or logical?
Then, is Jesus a firstborn or first created?

Another thing, did you see how the NWT inserted the word “other” to change its meaning. Is there a Greek word for “other”? If there is none, then why the Watchtower obviously added “other” after the firstborn of all creation? Kindly take a look with the KJV version.

Col. 1:15-20 (KJV)

James2ko gave a fine answer to your question regarding this. The fact that he isn't a one of Jehovah's witnesses should also tell you that his answer is an unbiased opinion -statement of fact rather- towards the insertion of the word other in Colossians chapter one.

To add further to his answer, not that it needs a better explanation, is that when you read definite statements found in the Bible, such as "all things were created through [Jesus]", they shouldn't always be understood as being absolute. For argument sake let's say Jesus was created, now, in the mind of the first century reader they would read the statement that "all things were created through [Jesus]" and know, without it being said, that Jesus isn't included in the "all things" even though the statement doesn't exclude him. This principle can be found in most langauges, James2ko gave a perfect example of Gen 3:20.

Another one can be found in Hebrews 2:7-9 which states regarding Adam/Man and God, “...You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honour, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. 9 But we do see Jesus…”

In the above it states in a definitive sense that God subjected “all things” under Adams/Mans feet, so much so, that God left “nothing that is not subject to him”. Therefore if absolutely nothing was left not subject to Adam/man then logic along with your reasoning demands that God too was subject to Adam, is this the case? No, why? Because it goes without saying that God -who the intended reader would already know is above all- the one who subjected all things under Adam/man was not to be included in the statement even though he wasn’t excluded by the writer. The Angels too would technically be included in the statement found in Hebrews 2:7,8 as they would fall into the category of “all things” but yet again no one would argue that they are.

Hence, when looking at scriptures such as Colossians 1:16,17 which states that Jesus created “all things” it doesn’t have to be viewed with such a dogmatic mind-set. The expressions “all things” in Hebrews 2:7,8 didn’t literally include all things, since the Angels and God certainly weren’t subjected to Adam/Man. Likewise when it states that Jesus created “all things” or was “before all things” in v17, this isn’t to restrict Jesus as not being part of creation, since the statement should only be understood as far as the bibles overall context permits.

For that reason the NWT adds the word "other" to end any confusion, just as any translator would be justified in adding an exclusion in Hebrew 7 if they deemed it necessary.

It is not about trinity after all. It is about the context itself about prototokos. Did Paul say Jesus is first created or firstborn?

Then if you say He is first created, how come Paul does not say Jesus is first created?

Thanks

The Trinity is what it boils down to. If the doctrine of the trinity didn't exist then what reason would there be to not accept prototokos as meaning both firstborn in both the temporal and authoritative sense?
There isn't one, accepting it as both for a trinitarian believer contradicts their belief system, so they reject it.

Firstborn and first created mean the same thing depending on the context. Col 1:15 lets us know one thing for sure, that Jesus is part of creation. Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 lets us know Jesus is the first created thing for a fact. Combining all scriptures together allows us to determine that prototokos is not to be understood as pertaining to Jesus leadership only. There isn't a single shred of evidence that prototokos in Col 1:15 only refers to Jesus preeminence, if there was you, or others, would have shown it by now.

There is no problem with the term “firstborn” but not “first created.” It can mean the first born child in a family just an example in Luke 2:7. It can can also mean "pre-eminence."

Good, then you should have no issue in never posting the link you refereed me to, as it teaches falsehoods.

 

[NWL]

There is no problem with the term “firstborn” but not “first created.” It can mean the first born child in a family just an example in Luke 2:7. It can can also mean "pre-eminence."

Thanks

Could you show me a single biblical or worldly example where something or someone is firstborn of a group and they themselves aren't part of the group they're firstborn of?

 

[Oeste]

Anyone who can read a bit of the N.T. in the Christian Bible should clearly see that Jesus isn't God.
However members of one of the largest Christian religions don't seem to read the Bible. They let Clergy to that for them.
Kind of like letting someone else eat your food for you.

When I was studying with Witnesses, I was often discouraged from doing any type of “independent” research or thought. In fact, I still remember the article:

It seems that some in association with the early Corinthian congregation were disregarding Paul’s authority, looking at him according to what he appeared to be in the flesh, and neglecting to take into account his special commission from Christ.Today, too, there are those who, by their independent thinking, question Christ’s ability to have and use on the earth a specially appointed governing body of imperfect humans, to whom he has entrusted all the Kingdom interests or “belongings” on earth.(Matt. 24:45-47) When such independent thinkers receive counsel and direction based on the Bible, they incline to the thought, ‘This is only from fleshly men, so it is up to me to decide whether to accept it or not.’ – The Watchtower, 6/1/1966, page 324​

I know people who cannot read, and other who cannot see, so I think it’s fine to let someone read the bible for you. But letting some “specially appointed governing body” do my thinking for me was never my cup of tea.

I understand the confusion. People tend to take the word of a religious leader who has been schooled in Christian dogma by the Church.
Jesus is not "God" but a visible representative of Him. But as I always say do the research for your self. I have been doing my own research for decades to shake off the sometimes silly "church" traditions we are often accepting as ..............well as gospel. :>) Traditions are hard to break.

Which “silly” church traditions are you specifically referring to?

The J.W.'s seem to have Scripture nailed down pretty good.

I’m glad you inserted the word “seem”, because “nailed down” is not how I would describe Watchtower theology. If anything, their constantly changing doctrines have me convinced that nothing they teach has been “nailed down” at all, but shifts and blows with the wind (Ephesians 4:14) as they “tack” and turn toward ever changing truths. In fact, I distinctly recall some Witnesses being disappointed if they left an Assembly without a new “do”, “don’t”, or “timeline”.

They are held in contempt because they preach things established religion got all wrong.

My experience has been different. The Watchtower fosters a haughty, proud attitude and a contemptuous view of any other religion but their own. Any disagreement means you are scripturally illiterate or deceitful. Are all Witnesses like this? Of course not…but the Watchtower champions this attitude toward other churches as well as those who have left their fold.

They reject Trinitarianism, inherent immortality of the soul, and hellfire, which they consider to be unscriptural doctrines.

This is not surprising, since they believe that reading the bible alone leads to “apostate” doctrines. I think the August 15, 1981 Watchtower says it best:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ." (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981)​

So anyone who reads the bible exclusively will come to the same “apostate doctrines” that Christianity reached long ago, and while the Watchtower views this as “strange” I view it as quite normal.

They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity.

Yes, it’s a religions filled with lot’s of do’s and don’ts, a modern legalism which, IMO, rivals that of the Pharisees. I’m not talking about scriptural prohibitions like coveting your neighbor’s wife or committing adultery, but prohibitions on playing too much with your neighbor’s kids, walking inside a YMCA, saying somebody was lucky, or tapping spoons against glass during a wedding.

Of course we do not want to stumble those weak in faith (those who rely on a litany of does or don’ts rather than Christ), but as Christians we prefer the biblical counsel found in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 and Romans 14:1-23.

If someone uses a day off to gather family or meet with friends or to give thanks to God in a special way, I see nothing to condemn them for. Also, I think it’s more important why that person is celebrating a particular holiday then it is to dredge up how a pagan may have celebrated 3,000 years ago. The reason for celebrating could be radically different…I’m sure anyone can point out that pagans gave wedding bands during wedding ceremonies and even wore blended clothing to worship , but I’d be hard pressed to understand why anyone would want to initiate a ban against such "pagan practices" today.

 

[NWL]

Let me firstly say I'm not here to defend the WT society, I will on the other hand defend JW doctrine. What you have written in your last response however is misleading on many matters which I will address.

When I was studying with Witnesses, I was often discouraged from doing any type of “independent” research or thought. In fact, I still remember the article:

It seems that some in association with the early Corinthian congregation were disregarding Paul’s authority, looking at him according to what he appeared to be in the flesh, and neglecting to take into account his special commission from Christ.Today, too, there are those who, by their independent thinking, question Christ’s ability to have and use on the earth a specially appointed governing body of imperfect humans, to whom he has entrusted all the Kingdom interests or “belongings” on earth.(Matt. 24:45-47) When such independent thinkers receive counsel and direction based on the Bible, they incline to the thought, ‘This is only from fleshly men, so it is up to me to decide whether to accept it or not.’ – The Watchtower, 6/1/1966, page 324​

The way you quoted the article and from what you said gives the impression the writer was talking about independent think in relation to researching other sources. This is not what the article was referring to. The article was comparing the free and independent thinking of the youthful hippie era to followers of Christ. Much of the context of the article was left out and is as follows:

AROUND the world today the cry is for more and still more freedom: freedom of thought, of speech and of action. In schools and universities the human philosophies expounded during the past fifty years are reaping a harvest of atheistic thinkers. And the effects of all this emphasis on individual self-determination are to be noted in the loud demands for independence by all kinds of splinter groups, social and political. Discipline and respect for authority are dwindling. Discontent is rife. Peace has been taken from the earth.

Having permitted youth to be indoctrinated with the idea that human thinking should not be restricted by a belief in a Supreme God, governing authorities are now faced with a rebel generation that is challenging social and moral principles and that insists on deciding for itself as between right and wrong. Young men and women, teen-agers, who frequently have no more than a superficial knowledge of the issues involved, join in strikes and protest marches as though they had fully examined all the facts and reached a mature decision. Open rebellion against adult rule is, in fact, very evident in our times.

How very different all this from the teaching the Bible and the words of Jesus Christ! (The Watchtower, 6/1/1966, page 323)​

The article was not stating that people should not do independent research or thought.

I’m glad you inserted the word “seem”, because “nailed down” is not how I would describe Watchtower theology. If anything, their constantly changing doctrines have me convinced that nothing they teach has been “nailed down” at all, but shifts and blows with the wind (Ephesians 4:14) as they “tack” and turn toward ever changing truths. In fact, I distinctly recall some Witnesses being disappointed if they left an Assembly without a new “do”, “don’t”, or “timeline”.

Our core doctrine has been solid for the last 50-60 years, not a lot has changed. You also act as if change is bad, what religion of today has the humility to change a belief? I can think of none. What's more if I were change my beliefs according to your understanding this would be viewed as good by you.Yet if somehow, the JW faith as a whole changed its doctrine according to your understanding, by your standards this would be bad? Once again, change is good, it shows an en-devour and willingness to try an gain the full truth of the bible whatever it may be.

My experience has been different. The Watchtower fosters a haughty, proud attitude and a contemptuous view of any other religion but their own. Any disagreement means you are scripturally illiterate or deceitful. Are all Witnesses like this? Of course not…but the Watchtower champions this attitude toward other churches as well as those who have left their fold.

You contradict yourself, one minute you state we change our beliefs like the wind, the next minute you're calling us proud? Tell me, when have you ever known a proud person to change his opinion on something "like the wind"? As you said this is from your experience, I assure you are the exception rather than the rule. I welcome disagreement and questions with my studies, as once they have explored every avenue they can then see that our teachings are solid.

The only proudness you may see in us is of our God Jehovah, "so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.” (1 Corinthians 1:31).

This is not surprising, since they believe that reading the bible alone leads to “apostate” doctrines. I think the August 15, 1981 Watchtower says it best:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ." (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981)​

So anyone who reads the bible exclusively will come to the same “apostate doctrines” that Christianity reached long ago, and while the Watchtower views this as “strange” I view it as quite normal.

Notice what you say compared to how the article actually reads, (YOU) "So anyone who reads the bible exclusively will come to the same “apostate doctrines”, (ARTICLE) "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude". You claim the article refers to anyone, and yet at the beginning of the paragraph it makes mention that its only from time to time, this is based on scripture where the apostles and Jesus refer to division among Gods people that would take place after their demise. Thus, how is it un-natural for JW's to think that these people, who are the ones causing divisions, are the person referred to in Matt 24:11-13, Acts 20:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:1, 22

Moreover we are constantly urged to "read the Bible daily" in personal study, this again goes against any notion that the society don't want us to study the bible.

Yes, it’s a religions filled with lot’s of do’s and don’ts, a modern legalism which, IMO, rivals that of the Pharisees. I’m not talking about scriptural prohibitions like coveting your neighbor’s wife or committing adultery, but prohibitions on playing too much with your neighbor’s kids, walking inside a YMCA, saying somebody was lucky, or tapping spoons against glass during a wedding.

The society make it their habit to only state the do's and don't regarding matters that go against clear bible principles, any other things they warn against are more like guidelines, even then they make it clear its down to each individuals conscience, so where the fault?

Also, I think it’s more important why that person is celebrating a particular holiday then it is to dredge up how a pagan may have celebrated 3,000 years ago. The reason for celebrating could be radically different…I’m sure anyone can point out that pagans gave wedding bands during wedding ceremonies and even wore blended clothing to worship , but I’d be hard pressed to understand why anyone would want to initiate a ban against such "pagan practices" today.

There lies your problem, if you can't see simple things as wrong, like celebrating a pagan holiday which in effect means your worshiping Satan or one of his demons then of course you're going to find a fault to justify you inability with keeping spiritual clean. Do you really think that to God or Satan, where a thousand years is but a day, see the difference in the following of pagan holiday just because the people celebrating it are ignorant and forgotten it originality. Do you really think Satan is sad and God happy that people are now still celebrating pagan holidays just because they've forgotten where is came from? Or perhaps is it the other way around.

The giving of wedding bands is a tradition/custom pagan people simply did, it is not in relation to any type of religious pagan ceremony or tradition from studies into the subject.

 

[NWL]

I’m glad you inserted the word “seem”, because “nailed down” is not how I would describe Watchtower theology.

Are you ready to answer the question I posed in our discussion before, or are you unable to address the points I raised?

1. Could you show me an example where something or something is the firstborn of a group and yet not part of the group? You can use any biblical or non biblical example, if you're unable to show me an example then please state so.

2. How does the statement of "These are the things that [Jesus] the Amen says, [who is] the faithful and true witness, [who is] the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:14) somehow show that Jesus is preeminent over creation?

3. How does the statement found in the OT, prior to the events of Col 1:18, of "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago" (Prov 8:22) show that Jesus is preeminent over creation?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Let me firstly say I'm not here to defend the WT society, I will on the other hand defend JW doctrine. What you have written in your last response however is misleading on many matters which I will address.

​

The way you quoted the article and from what you said gives the impression the writer was talking about independent think in relation to researching other sources. This is not what the article was referring to. The article was comparing the free and independent thinking of the youthful hippie era to followers of Christ. Much of the context of the artilce was left out and is as follows:

AROUND the world today the cry is for more and still more freedom: freedom of thought, of speech and of action. In schools and universities the human philosophies expounded during the past fifty years are reaping a harvest of atheistic thinkers. And the effects of all this emphasis on individual self-determination are to be noted in the loud demands for independence by all kinds of splinter groups, social and political. Discipline and respect for authority are dwindling. Discontent is rife. Peace has been taken from the earth.

Having permitted youth to be indoctrinated with the idea that human thinking should not be restricted by a belief in a Supreme God, governing authorities are now faced with a rebel generation that is challenging social and moral principles and that insists on deciding for itself as between right and wrong. Young men and women, teen-agers, who frequently have no more than a superficial knowledge of the issues involved, join in strikes and protest marches as though they had fully examined all the facts and reached a mature decision. Open rebellion against adult rule is, in fact, very evident in our times.

How very different all this from the teaching the Bible and the words of Jesus Christ! (The Watchtower, 6/1/1966, page 323)​

The article was not stating that people should not do independent research or thought.



Our core doctrine has been solid for the last 50-60 years, not a lot has changed. You also act as if change is bad, what religion of today has the humility to change a belief? I can think of none. What's more if I were change my beliefs according to your understanding this would be viewed as good by you.Yet if somehow, the JW faith as a whole changed its doctrine according to your understanding, by your standards this would be bad? Once again, change is good, it shows an en-devour and willingness to try an gain the full truth of the bible whatever it may be.



You contradict yourself, at one minute you state we change our beliefs like the wind, the next minute you're calling us proud? Tell me, when have you ever known a proud person to change his opinion on something? As you said this is from your experience, I assure you are the exception rather than the rule. I welcome disagreement and questions with my studies, as once they have explored every avenue they can then see that our teachings are solid.

The only proudness you may see in us is of our God Jehovah, "so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.” (1 Corinthians 1:31).



Notice what you say compared to how the article actually reads, (YOU) "So anyone who reads the bible exclusively will come to the same “apostate doctrines”, (ARTICLE) "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude". You claim the article refers to anyone, and yet at the beginning of the paragraph it makes mention that its only from time to time, this is based on scripture where the apostles and Jesus refer to division among Gods people that would take place after their demise. Thus, how is it un-natural for JW's to think that these people, who are the ones causing divisions, are the person referred to in Matt 24:11-13, Acts 20:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:1, 22

Moreover we are constantly urged to "read the Bible daily" in personal study, this again goes against any notion that the society don't want us to study the bible.



The society make it their habit to only state the do's and don't regarding matters that go against clear bible principles, any other things they warn against are more like guidelines, even then they make it clear its down to each individuals conscience, so where the fault?



There lies your problem, if you can't see simple things as wrong, like celebrating a pagan holiday which in effect means your worshiping Satan or one of his demons then of course you're going to find a fault to justify you inability with keeping spiritual clean. Do you really think that to God or Satan, where a thousand years is but a day, see the difference in the following of pagan holiday just because the people celebrating it are ignorant and forgotten it originality. Do you really think Satan is sad and God happy that people are now still celebrating pagan holidays just because they've forgotten where is came from? Or perhaps is it the other way around.

The giving of wedding bands is a tradition/custom pagan people simply did, it is not in relation to any type of religious pagan ceremony or tradition from studies into the subject.

Real good information, my brother! I'm glad you have access to those old articles. So many bring up very old stuff. We still need to try and be "gentle toward all", which admittedly is difficult at times.

take care, my brother!