Is Jesus God?

[jeager106]

NLW!
Great post.
It isn't easy being a part of a religion that flies the truth in the face of others
with a closed mind.
I have great admiration for J.W.'s.

 

[jeager106]

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.



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



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”.



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.



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.



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.

Silly doctrines and silly traditions?
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/Apostasy in the Church.HTM

http://www.biblebelievers.com/FalseDoctrine.html

 

[Yoshua]

Silly doctrines and silly traditions?
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/Apostasy in the Church.HTM

http://www.biblebelievers.com/FalseDoctrine.html

Hi Jeager,

Regarding these two weblink that you've posted, indeed a nice expose, and reminders to all. So how would you assess your faith in God. How man can be saved?

What make you admire JW? you posted weblink exposed JW as one of the cult churches.
Some Christian identity cults make Jesus a lesser God - Mormons and
Jehovah witnesses

The other one stated that Russelism teaches Jesus was never God, tecahes He had a beginning and God created Him. I believed JW's belief traced back and originated through Charles taze Russell.

Thanks

 

[jeager106]

Hi Jeager,

Regarding these two weblink that you've posted, indeed a nice expose, and reminders to all. So how would you assess your faith in God. How man can be saved?

Saved from what?

What make you admire JW if your posted weblink exposed JW as one of the cult churches?

J.W.s are considered to be a cult by many organizations. It's not my definition.
Thanks

 

[moorea944]

Hi Jeager,

Regarding these two weblink that you've posted, indeed a nice expose, and reminders to all. So how would you assess your faith in God. How man can be saved?

What make you admire JW? you posted weblink exposed JW as one of the cult churches.
Some Christian identity cults make Jesus a lesser God - Mormons and
Jehovah witnesses

The other one stated that Russelism teaches Jesus was never God, tecahes He had a beginning and God created Him. I believed JW's belief traced back and originated through Charles taze Russell.

Thanks

Some Christian identity cults make Jesus a lesser God - Mormons and Jehovah witnesses

Yeah, it's too bad that there are labels on churches because they are different from some other people, esp coming from the people who believe that Jesus is God even though the bible knows nothing of a trinity and that it was put into religion by man. Shame.

 

[Yoshua]

Hi Jeager,

Based on your posted weblink, what do you think that a man should do (in relation with God) in order to be saved (gain eternal life)?

Yeah. It is not your definition but those are a good source of information and expose that everyone may look at.

Thanks

 

[jeager106]

Hi Jeager,

Based on your posted weblink, what do you think that a man should do (in relation with God) in order to be saved (gain eternal life)?

Yeah. It is not your definition but those are a good source of information and expose that everyone may look at.

Please post your thoughts on this subject.

Thanks

Post those sources please.

 

[Yoshua]

Post those sources please.

This is coming from your recent post no. 2122
Silly doctrines and silly traditions?
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/Apostasy in the Church.HTM

http://www.biblebelievers.com/FalseDoctrine.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/FalseDoctrine.html
Thanks

 

[jeager106]

This is coming from your recent post no. 2122
Silly doctrines and silly traditions?
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/Apostasy in the Church.HTM

http://www.biblebelievers.com/FalseDoctrine.html
Thanks

Many thanks. thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks.

 

[Yoshua]

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".

The “other” simply clarifies and not change the meaning?? Really, or the insertion of the word “other” is to show that Jesus was before all other things and implies He is created.

How about John 1:1,
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(NAS)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (NWT)

May I ask you, does it change the meaning of NWT of John 1:1 or not?

Do you think that NWT is accurate and scholarly acceptable?

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.

So you believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things, then how come He is also created.
A Creator created himself? Do you think this is logical?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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!

James,

If Jesus is first created then why did Paul did not used “proto” with “ktizo” for the first created. He instead used “proto” and “tikto” for firstborn? as simple as that.

How about Manasseh was called the firstborn. Ephraim is the second born in Gen. 41:51-52. In Jer. 31:9, Ephraim is called the firstborn. Therefore, "firstborn" is a title of preeminence that is transferable, and does not mean first created.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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).

Hi NWL,

Ok. If that would be the case that arche, would mean the "source," "origin," then Christ—as the source or origin of all creation (not the first created).

Does it make sense to say that Christ is the first creature because everything was created in Him??

3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (ASV)

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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.

I think the Trinity is not to be blame. The Trinity is about the existence of one God which we can see thoroughly in the Scriptures.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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?

I’m not familiar with the “group” that you are saying. As I know, my example about Manasseh was called the firstborn. Ephraim is the second born in Gen. 41:51-52. In Jer. 31:9, Ephraim is called the firstborn. Therefore, "firstborn" is a title of preeminence that is transferable, and does not mean first created.

Thanks

 

[NWL]

Hi NWL,

Ok. If that would be the case that arche, would mean the "source," "origin," then Christ—as the source or origin of all creation (not the first created).

Does it make sense to say that Christ is the first creature because everything was created in Him??

3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (ASV)

Thanks

What in my response did you not get? "Arche" does not mean source or origin. My claim is that arche in Rev 3:14 means "beginning" in the same sense we understand the word "beginning" to mean in english. This is because all things were created through Jesus by God, read John 1:3 again as you clearly aren't seeing it. I've clearly demonstrated how Jesus cannot be the source of creation and that it's the Father whom all things are from.

"..But for us, "There is only one God, the Father. Everything came from him, and we live for him. There is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. Everything came into being through him, and we live because of him.." (1 Cor 8:6 GWT)

If all things came from God and through Jesus, then how could it be said that Jesus is the source? If I give a gift to someone to give to you who is the source of the gift? The one who originally gave the gift! Likewise if all things came from the Father and through Jesus, who is the originally source? The Father!

Hence why Jesus says regarding the Father "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57), why? Because the Father is the source and fountain of life, "..For with you [YHWH] is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.." (Psalms 36:9)

 

[NWL]

I’m not familiar with the “group” that you are saying

By group I mean any reference to a firstborn in relation to what he's firstborn of. Take Exodus 11:5, that reads "and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharʹaoh who is sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the slave girl who is working at the hand mill, and every firstborn of the livestock."

Each group can be identified by the class they're firstborn over, when it refers to the "firstborn of Egpyt" the group or class is that of the Egyptians, when it states "the firstborn of Pharʹaoh" the group and class is Pharaohs family, when it states "firstborn of the slave girl" the group and class is that of the slave girl. In Col 1:18 when it says Jesus is the "firstborn of the dead" the group is the group of the dead. If I were to talk about the "firstborn kitten" the group and class I'm referring to is that of cats/kittens.

Therefore, the group I was referring to was any group that you desire, the world is your oyster, the choice is yours.

As I know, my example about Manasseh was called the firstborn. Ephraim is the second born in Gen. 41:51-52. In Jer. 31:9, Ephraim is called the firstborn.

Yes, but but Ephraim is still part of the same family/group that Manesseh was in, they were both sons of Jacob. I'm asking for something specific. Remember, my claim is that when you're called firstborn of something you are always part of the group that you're firstborn over, Jesus was called the "firstborn of creation", therefore Jesus must be part of creation. I also make the claim that there isn't a single example where someone is firstborn of a group/class, and they themselves aren't part of the group/class that they're firstborn of. You're implying, that even though Jesus was the "firstborn of creation" this doesn't put him in that group that he's firstborn over, I deny this as there isn't a single worldly or biblical example of this ever taking place.

Thus, I asked you to show me an example where anything, biblical or no-biblcal, is firstborn of a group/class and they themselves are not part of that group. Your example of Manasseh and Ephraim do not fit this criteria since they belong to the same family/group/class. Yes Ephraim was second born and became firstborn in the sense of preeminence but he was still part of the group that he became firstborn in thus agreeing with my claim and not yours.

Therefore, "firstborn" is a title of preeminence that is transferable, and does not mean first created.

We've both already been through this, do you keep forgetting this? Yes, prōtotokos can mean firstborn in the sense of first created and also firstborn in the sense of preeminence, as I have stated many times now this has no effect on my question so stop bringing it up. My claim, at present, is not that Jesus was first created because of the usage of prōtotokos in Col 1:15, but rather, that he is part of the creation since when the word prōtotokos is used it demands the subject to be in the group that they're prōtotokos over.

Since you should now understand what I mean when I say group, could you please give me an example of anyone or anything that is labelled as the firstborn of a group, where they themselves are not part of that group?

 

[james2ko]

The “other” simply clarifies and not change the meaning?? Really, or the insertion of the word “other” is to show that Jesus was before all other things and implies He is created.

How about John 1:1,
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(NAS)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (NWT)

May I ask you, does it change the meaning of NWT of John 1:1 or not?

Do you think that NWT is accurate and scholarly acceptable?

Yes I do. Do I think the KJV is accurate and scholarly acceptable. Yes I do. Do I think the KJV is in some places inaccurate. Yes. Every translation has its gems and flaws. . You'll learn this as you continue to grow in your studies. Joh 1:1 was translated "a god" in several "unpopular" translations. But yes Jesus is "a" God, not "the" God. "The" God would be the Father.

So you believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things, then how come He is also created. A Creator created himself? Do you think this is logical?

Do you think Eve being the mother of herself is logical? Did you even understand my post about Gen 3:20? Or are you simply ignoring it? Just as Eve could not be the mother of herself when it is mentioned she is the mother of "all living", so is Christ not the Creator of Himself when it says He created "all things".

James,If Jesus is first created then why did Paul did not used “proto” with “ktizo” for the first created. He instead used “proto” and “tikto” for firstborn? as simple as that.

That's a very weak argument from silence. Using your reasoning I could say, If Jesus is not first created, why didn't Paul use proto with ktizo to say, " Christ was not proto kitso". The reason Paul did not use this word is because it did not exist at the time (semantic anachronism)! It is never used anywhere in Scripture and did not even come into use until centuries later in the Stromata by Clement about 200 AD, when he used both words (prototokos/protokistos) interchangeably.

How about Manasseh was called the firstborn. Ephraim is the second born in Gen. 41:51-52. In Jer. 31:9, Ephraim is called the firstborn. Therefore, "firstborn" is a title of preeminence that is transferable, and does not mean first created.

Let's not forget David (Ps 89:27-29). These passages actually describe the “creation” of new positions of honor or status these subjects did not hold at one point in their past. The Scriptures reveal God “created” a first-of-its-kind relationship with David and his descendants . The nation of Israel , including the 10 tribes commonly referred to as Ephraim (Hos 11:8,12), was “brought into existence” as God’s first “theocracy”, which also gave them pre-eminence over other nations (Deu 7:6; 26:19; Ex 19:6; Isa 43:15; Jer 2:3). In other words, prōtotokos never loses its primary connotation of a beginning of existence of some person, place, or thing!

 

[Katzpur]

Some Christian identity cults make Jesus a lesser God - Mormons and Jehovah witnesses

It's not nice to post lies about other people. Mormons believe that Jesus is and has always been God. Your source is a pathetic attempt to misrepresent Mormonism. It is mean-spirited and hateful. You should be ashamed for being so gullible as to buy into it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The “other” simply clarifies and not change the meaning?? Really, or the insertion of the word “other” is to show that Jesus was before all other things and implies He is created.

How about John 1:1,
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(NAS)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (NWT)

May I ask you, does it change the meaning of NWT of John 1:1 or not?

Do you think that NWT is accurate and scholarly acceptable?

So you believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things, then how come He is also created.
A Creator created himself? Do you think this is logical?

Thanks

Hello Yoshua.

Regarding John 1:1.....


Grammar, as in every language, makes all the difference.

Philip B. Harner, in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.” Why not at John 1:1? Do these translators have an a-priori commitment to some teaching? By not being consistent, it seems so.

Roman Catholic priest and much-acclaimed scholar John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold print and italics are mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
He was a Trinitarian, but was scholarly enough to see how this passage should be rendered.

( His "Dictionary of the Bible" is a fascinating book!)

Galileo Galilei

 

[Notaclue]

Yes I do. Do I think the KJV is accurate and scholarly acceptable. Yes I do. Do I think the KJV is in some places inaccurate. Yes. Every translation has its gems and flaws. . You'll learn this as you continue to grow in your studies. Joh 1:1 was translated "a god" in several "unpopular" translations. But yes Jesus is "a" God, not "the" God. "The" God would be the Father.



Do you think Eve being the mother of herself is logical? Did you even understand my post about Gen 3:20? Or are you simply ignoring it? Just as Eve could not be the mother of herself when it is mentioned she is the mother of "all living", so is Christ not the Creator of Himself when it says He created "all things".



That's a very weak argument from silence. Using your reasoning I could say, If Jesus is not first created, why didn't Paul use proto with ktizo to say, " Christ was not proto kitso". The reason Paul did not use this word is because it did not exist at the time (semantic anachronism)! It is never used anywhere in Scripture and did not even come into use until centuries later in the Stromata by Clement about 200 AD, when he used both words (prototokos/protokistos) interchangeably.




Let's not forget David (Ps 89:27-29). These passages actually describe the “creation” of new positions of honor or status these subjects did not hold at one point in their past. The Scriptures reveal God “created” a first-of-its-kind relationship with David and his descendants . The nation of Israel , including the 10 tribes commonly referred to as Ephraim (Hos 11:8,12), was “brought into existence” as God’s first “theocracy”, which also gave them pre-eminence over other nations (Deu 7:6; 26:19; Ex 19:6; Isa 43:15; Jer 2:3). In other words, prōtotokos never loses its primary connotation of a beginning of existence of some person, place, or thing!

Acts2:36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


God hath made.............Jesus............Lord and Christ.


Jesus Christ never created Anything.


Col.1:15. who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto(into) him; 17and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18And 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. 19For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; 20and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say , whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.


Remember, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One and the Same?


Peace.