Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

NOTICE OF IMPORTANT THREAD POINT

Look, I know this can be difficult for our Arian/Witness friends here, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the NWT IS CORRECT, ok? We’re not QUESTIONING the NWT here; we are simply trying to REASON WITH IT.

Why? Because the NWT translates Jesus as “a god” at John 1:1 and at John 10:33, but the Watchtower…mankind’s sole source of interpretive “truth” in our modern age…has told us, for nearly 60 years, that Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 but NOT “a god” at John 10:33!

So yes, I agree with Deeje and Old Badger that we should “question the translators” here. But for the sake of argument we’re just going to accept the NWT as correct, like so many Jehovah Witnesses have done before. That should not make things difficult for us, but relatively easy.

As such I am now an eager student willing to learn from my new teachers. Who knows? There may be a few Trinitarians, nay even Oneness Pentecostals, willing to sit in and learn from today’s instruction.

But as potential new Arians, when such questions come up, is it your position we question the bible’s veracity, avoid the question by talking about the Crusades, throw up our hands and say “Well, that’s John” like Old Badger,...or do we take such questions head on?

My fellow Arians, as a Trinitarian these questions are fairly easy to answer! I can't speak for all Trinitarians, but I'm pretty sure I can get them to at least pretend to be "happy Arians" for a moment, if only for purposes of this thread, and nod their heads up and down as you read “a god” at John 1:1 and John 10:33.

Alas, I feel we may all backslide into “apostasy” if climbing on board the WT/Arian bandwagon means we can no longer answer fairly simple questions. Even now, some of my more “fair minded” Trinitarians friends are looking nervous whilst others are dashing toward the exits. I’m doing my best not to be alarmed.

With that in mind, I’ll await your further deflection, misdirection, or direct response to the few simple questions asked in the OP.

 

[oldbadger]

Not exactly Old Badger. I was not looking for perceived "errors" in the temple cleaning timeline. I am quoting the Watchtower’s New World Translation of the apostle John and for purposes of this discussion, have asked the reader to accept their translation as “correct”. The reason for this is given in the OP.

As stated in the OP, we are accepting the New World Translation of John 10:33 as correct in order to see how much mileage we get.

Once we accept the New World Translation as the “correct” translation there is no need to ask who translated it into Greek, or what the “Early English” translation looked like because the Watchtower has done all the “heavy lifting” for us.

Unfortunately, after accepting this dubious premise I ran into 3 specific dilemmas (there are more), all of which were specifically enumerated in the OP. Your post does not address either one, two or three.

However if you are still interested in errors in the NWT and/or who translated what into Greek or English I’m sure there are JW’s available who can answer these questions for you.

Lastly, if you are unable to hold the New Testament as correct, if only for purposes of discussion, then I'm not sure how you will be able to effectively respond to either question.

OK...... Fair enough..... fair enough..... I acknowledge your points, and that you have taken a translation 'as is' to then let it contradict itself..... or that's how I look at it.
Pax!

My point is simply that John's gospel is (imo) so dodgy as to make such issues ..... hmmm,... of no great import. But that's from my 'outsider' perspective.

 

[danieldemol]

the Watchtower…mankind’s sole source of interpretive “truth” in our modern age…has told us, for nearly 60 years, that Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1

Do you have a link saying Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 from the watchtower interpretive tracts? I followed your link but didn’t find it.
What have I missed?

 

[Deeje]

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

I think we are all aware of your motives here.
So for the benefit of those who may be interested in your misrepresentation, I’ll try to be brief.

Jesus came in the name of his Father....a name that the Jews had long since abandoned in their speech, but retained in their scripture. As “the son of God”, he promoted God’s name to his disciples. (John 17:6, 26) This would have angered the Jews who wanted him silenced. After all, silencing God’s prophets was what they had done in the past. (Matthew 23:37)

Claiming that he and the Father were “one” was not Jesus claiming equality with his Father, but unity of belief and purpose, as was the case with he and his apostles and disciples. (John 17:20-22)

No dilemma.

Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.

Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Just to set the record straight, rejecting the trinity does not make JW’s Arians. We know the God we worship and he doesn’t have three heads. (John 17:3)

Read John 10:34-36.....the judges in Israel did not call themselves “gods” but Jehovah did, indicating their divine authority. This divine authority was also “given” to Jesus, which, if he was God would have been completely unnecessary. (Matthew 28:18)

No dilemma.

Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all

Who is making the claim at John 10:33? Wasn’t it the Jews who were trying to accuse him of blasphemy? Jesus never claimed to be “a god”.....he said point blank......“I am the son of God”. (John 10:36)...not the same at all.

No dilemma there either.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

It’s a confusing, contradictory Christology.

A huge problem???? What a joke! The problem is all yours, I’m afraid. Jesus did not claim that he was a god, as the Jews were suggesting, but that “a god” could simply be one with divine authority.....(as we can see from the scriptures quoted)....Jesus was given that authority. Does God need to give his equal self authority? (Matthew 28:18)

It is only contradictory if you misrepresent what we believe, which you seem to relish. Please read my signature....

Your dilemmas are non-existent...

 

[cataway]

From my conversation and studies with Jehovah Witnesses they sincerely believe Jesus claims to be “a god” at John 10:33, but they would be wrong…not only from majority Christian standards but by Watchtower standards as well. I believe this is because the WT recognizes the dilemma of proclaiming Jesus “a god” at John 10:33 even if many Witnesses do not.

Let’s take a look at a traditional (NIV) and the Watchtower’s New World Translation (NWT) paying special attention to verse 33:

30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”​

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” NIV​

OR:

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT​

We’ll proceed with the “a god” translation as if it were correct, just to see how much mileage we get. Unfortunately this crashes us head first into our first dilemma.

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

View attachment 41469

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/john/10/#v43010033

In effect, both JW.ORG and the NWT are giving backhand support for the Trinitarian translation that the crowd was about to stone Jesus for calling himself Jehovah, and not for simply referring to himself as “a god”.


Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.


Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Yet the biblical and historical record is absolutely silent in this regard. There is no record of Jews stoning their judges, magistrates, or other “powerful people” simply for considering themselves “gods”.

So where’s the evidence?


Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all! The reason for this will become clear.

Let go back to the Watchtower’s biblical scenario:

The mob is about to stone Jesus for blasphemy…calling himself “a god” according to the WT translation. They have rocks in hand, and they're itching to fly. But Jesus, having grabbed the crowd’s undivided attention does something curious. He quotes Psalm 82:6:

I have said, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fail.” Psalm 82:6-7.​

The last thing you want to do with a stone wielding crowd is compare yourself to Israel’s judges of old. Why? Because the judges of old were condemned by Jehovah God! In other words, Jesus is saying “The judges of old were “sons of God”, I am the son of God, the judges of old were “gods” and I just told you I was “a god”, the judges of old were condemned by God…so what on earth is taking you so long to condemn me?”

If that doesn’t get a rock hurtling by your ear, I don’t know what would, and therein lays the Watchtower’s dilemma. They simply can’t have Jesus comparing himself to the corrupt judges of Israel by declaring he’s “a god” at John 10:33, and they certainly can’t have the crowd thinking that Jesus had just declared himself “God”.

But our clever “truth finding” friends at the Watchtower have a solution. A “twofer” they gleaned straight out of the text. Not only does Jesus deny he’s God at John 10:33, he also denies he’s “a god”! :

· 66 Jesus told those who wanted to stone him that he had not claimed to be God or a god, even though Psalm 82:6 had called some men, some Israelite judges, “gods.”

- The Watchtower—9/15/1962 pp. 560-567​

source: Prehuman Existence — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (see paragraph 66)

How the WT got Jesus to deny being God and/or “a god” at John 10:33 is baffling, but I suppose if you’re a Jehovah Witness it’s all there right there, embedded somewhere in the text.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

It’s a confusing, contradictory Christology.

do you call him God or a god ?

 

[Oeste]

Do you have a link saying Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 from the watchtower interpretive tracts? I followed your link but didn’t find it.
What have I missed?

Hi danieldemol,

The Watchtower and orthodox Christianity both understand Jesus to be the Word. The major dispute between us is whether the "Word was God" (Orthodox) or whether the "Word was a god" (Watchtower/Arian).

This also carries over to John 10:33, where my bible says the Jews were about to stone Jesus for making himself "God", whereas an Arian/Watchtower bible will state the Jews were about to stone Jesus for making himself "a god".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I guess my post was a non-sequitur — my bad — but the sad facts revealing Christendom, most of whom are Trinitarian, to be blood-guilty before God are irrefutable.

(I hope one day you remove yourself from their membership.)

If the Jews really thought Jesus was saying that he was God, they definitely would have accused him of that at his Sanhedrin trial.
They never did.
Only that he said he was “the son of God”.

That negates the mainstream view of John 8:58, too.

 

[Oeste]

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

I think we are all aware of your motives here.

Likewise, I think we are all aware of your motives here as well.

Jesus came in the name of his Father....a name that the Jews had long since abandoned in their speech, but retained in their scripture. As “the son of God”, he promoted God’s name to his disciples. (John 17:6, 26) This would have angered the Jews who wanted him silenced. After all, silencing God’s prophets was what they had done in the past. (Matthew 23:37)

Claiming that he and the Father were “one” was not Jesus claiming equality with his Father, but unity of belief and purpose, as was the case with he and his apostles and disciples. (John 17:20-22)

I remember asking a young girl “How much is 6+6?”

She was cute as a button, and proceeded to tell me how much 1+1 was, 2+2 was, all the way to 5+5. My 6+6 question never got answered.

We have the same problem here.

Deeje tells us there's no dilemma with Jesus being one with the Father. That’s great but it wasn't the question asked. Here's the dilemma again:

At John 10:33, the online NWT clearly shows the NWT supports the Trinitarian position that the Jews thought Jesus had blasphemed by making himself Jehovah, and not for making himself “a god”. The box with the "Cited Scripture" is what pops up when you click the plus sign next to "blasphemy" and it refers to Leviticus 24:16 which states the abuser of Jehovah's name must be put to death without fail.

If John 10:33 states the Jews were stoning Jesus for making himself "God", then OF COURSE we would see a reference to Leviticus 24:16. But if the crime is for making himself “a god” the reader would have been pointed to the First Commandment (You shall have no other gods before me) and/or the Second Commandment (You shall make no idols) or even perhaps Deuteronomy 13:2 (…and if the prophet says: “Let us follow other gods…”).

The last place you expect a reader to be pointed to after an "a god" rendering is Leviticus 24:16 which supports the Trinitarian position of Jesus being stoned for claiming he was God.

That’s the dilemma Deeje. It has nothing to do with the Father and Jesus being “One”.

The dilemma is still there.

Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Read John 10:34-36.....the judges in Israel did not call themselves “gods” but Jehovah did, indicating their divine authority. This divine authority was also “given” to Jesus, which, if he was God would have been completely unnecessary. (Matthew 28:18)

No dilemma.

Of course there's a dilemma.

Jesus is about to be stoned for making himself “a god”. This stoning wasn’t at the hand of some lone, mentally unstable, demon possessed or isolated Jew, but by a crowd of Jews at the Temple.

Obviously they thought anyone "making themselves a god" should be stoned. It is just as obvious this reflected current religious thought at the time. It’s not like anyone rushed out the Temple to stop them, and scripture doesn’t claim he was approached by a rogue band of religious zealots.

I'm not at all sure why you think the judges being "given divine authority" has anything to do with why the crowd of Jews are about to stone Jesus. The crowd did not claim they were stoning Jesus for being given divine authority; the crowd did explicitly stated, at least according to the NWT, that he was being stoned for making himself "a god".

As such we should see further examples in the biblical/secular record of gods (judges, magistrates, tribal leaders, powerful people and such) who were likewise stoned in Israel simply for making, calling, declaring, or insinuating themselves “a god”.

Instead we see nothing and all we hear is silence.

That’s a big dilemma Deeje and nothing in your response answers it.

I asked for evidence of gods being stoned in Israel. Perhaps it was a fading fad in 1st Century Israel, the result of an underground religious movement, a prank they were playing on Jesus…something to explain why someone making them self “a god” would be routinely or summarily stoned. Instead, you tell us divine authority was given to Jesus and thus the dilemma is “solved”.

It’s that little girl all over again.

Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all

Who is making the claim at John 10:33? Wasn’t it the Jews who were trying to accuse him of blasphemy?

Absolutely! They claimed he made himself “a god”.

Jesus never claimed to be “a god”.....he said point blank......“I am the son of God”. (John 10:36)...not the same at all.

No dilemma there either.

Whoa!

"Jesus never claimed to be "a god" and you see NO DILEMMA???

Did you forget John 1:1?

Jesus is the Word Deeje, and according to the NWT, "the Word was a god".

Who is writing to us at John 1:1? Is it not Jesus' apostle?

And since he is Jesus' apostle, who is he speaking for? Is he speaking only for himself? Unless Christ denied John, what is written cannot be broken. You can't tell us Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1 and then tell us Jesus never claimed to be "a god" when John 10:33 roles around. It's the exact same writer for heaven's sake!!

The dilemma is still there.

A huge problem???? What a joke! The problem is all yours, I’m afraid. Jesus did not claim that he was a god, as the Jews were suggesting,

Well we know that’s nonsense right there. In the NWT John clearly states Jesus is “a god”. Does John speak for himself or does he speak for Christ? You're the teacher here. Tell us plainly.

but that “a god” could simply be one with divine authority.....(as we can see from the scriptures quoted)....Jesus was given that authority.

What on earth does this have to do with the Jews stoning Jesus?

Does God need to give his equal self authority? (Matthew 28:18)

I thought we were all trying to be happy Arians here Deeje! As such I'm not sure why you direct this question at me.

However, in Arian theology (which the WT happily endorses, but doesn’t claim) Jesus is “a god”. Now you tell us this is something Jesus never claimed to be even though the disciples who speak for him say he is!

This opens a whole new dilemma Deeje. If the apostles aren’t speaking for Christ, then who exactly are they speaking for? It can’t be for the Father because then they would be speaking for Chirst as well; you’ve already explained how “Jesus and the Father are one”.

Yet you see nothing wrong, no problem, no dilemma, with such a convoluted and twisted Christology.

Amazing, but I see the Trinitarians have long left the room, having abandoned hope of making any sense out of the public talk just heard.

 

[Oeste]

do you call him God or a god ?

If by him you mean Jesus I call him God when I do not call him man but for purposes of this thread, I am calling him “a god” in order to better understand Arian/Witness Christology. Think of me as a Trinitarian who has just invited you into his home one Saturday morning.

We've just read John 1:1, and how the Word was Jesus, and how, according to the NWT, Jesus was "a god".

Then @Deeje tells us in Jesus never claimed to be "a god" at all, even though his disciple who speaks for him clearly states he is.

This tells me that John clearly doesn't speak for Christ and thus the entirety of John must be suspect.

Now let me ask you a question. We have the NWT open. When John stated the Word was “a god” was he speaking solely for himself, or for the person that sent him?

We already have Deeje’s answer. What say you?

 

[Deeje]

Likewise, I think we are all aware of your motives here as well.



I remember asking a young girl “How much is 6+6?”

She was cute as a button, and proceeded to tell me how much 1+1 was, 2+2 was, all the way to 5+5. My 6+6 question never got answered.

We have the same problem here.

Deeje tells us there's no dilemma with Jesus being one with the Father. That’s great but it wasn't the question asked. Here's the dilemma again:

View attachment 41495


At John 10:33, the online NWT clearly shows the NWT supports the Trinitarian position that the Jews thought Jesus had blasphemed by making himself Jehovah, and not for making himself “a god”. The box with the "Cited Scripture" is what pops up when you click the plus sign next to "blasphemy" and it refers to Leviticus 24:16 which states the abuser of Jehovah's name must be put to death without fail.

If John 10:33 states the Jews were stoning Jesus for making himself "God", then OF COURSE we would see a reference to Leviticus 24:16. But if the crime is for making himself “a god” the reader would have been pointed to the First Commandment (You shall have no other gods before me) and/or the Second Commandment (You shall make no idols) or even perhaps Deuteronomy 13:2 (…and if the prophet says: “Let us follow other gods…”).

The last place you expect a reader to be pointed to after an "a god" rendering is Leviticus 24:16 which supports the Trinitarian position of Jesus being stoned for claiming he was God.

That’s the dilemma Deeje. It has nothing to do with the Father and Jesus being “One”.

The dilemma is still there.





Of course there's a dilemma.

Jesus is about to be stoned for making himself “a god”. This stoning wasn’t at the hand of some lone, mentally unstable, demon possessed or isolated Jew, but by a crowd of Jews at the Temple.

Obviously they thought anyone "making themselves a god" should be stoned. It is just as obvious this reflected current religious thought at the time. It’s not like anyone rushed out the Temple to stop them, and scripture doesn’t claim he was approached by a rogue band of religious zealots.

I'm not at all sure why you think the judges being "given divine authority" has anything to do with why the crowd of Jews are about to stone Jesus. The crowd did not claim they were stoning Jesus for being given divine authority; the crowd did explicitly stated, at least according to the NWT, that he was being stoned for making himself "a god".

As such we should see further examples in the biblical/secular record of gods (judges, magistrates, tribal leaders, powerful people and such) who were likewise stoned in Israel simply for making, calling, declaring, or insinuating themselves “a god”.

Instead we see nothing and all we hear is silence.

That’s a big dilemma Deeje and nothing in your response answers it.

I asked for evidence of gods being stoned in Israel. Perhaps it was a fading fad in 1st Century Israel, the result of an underground religious movement, a prank they were playing on Jesus…something to explain why someone making them self “a god” would be routinely or summarily stoned. Instead, you tell us divine authority was given to Jesus and thus the dilemma is “solved”.

It’s that little girl all over again.







Absolutely! They claimed he made himself “a god”.





Whoa!

"Jesus never claimed to be "a god" and you see NO DILEMMA???

Did you forget John 1:1?

Jesus is the Word Deeje, and according to the NWT, "the Word was a god".

Who is writing to us at John 1:1? Is it not Jesus' apostle?

And since he is Jesus' apostle, who is he speaking for? Is he speaking only for himself? Unless Christ denied John, what is written cannot be broken. You can't tell us Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1 and then tell us Jesus never claimed to be "a god" when John 10:33 roles around. It's the exact same writer for heaven's sake!!

The dilemma is still there.



Well we know that’s nonsense right there. In the NWT John clearly states Jesus is “a god”. Does John speak for himself or does he speak for Christ? You're the teacher here. Tell us plainly.




What on earth does this have to do with the Jews stoning Jesus?




I thought we were all trying to be happy Arians here Deeje! As such I'm not sure why you direct this question at me.

However, in Arian theology (which the WT happily endorses, but doesn’t claim) Jesus is “a god”. Now you tell us this is something Jesus never claimed to be even though the disciples who speak for him say he is!

This opens a whole new dilemma Deeje. If the apostles aren’t speaking for Christ, then who exactly are they speaking for? It can’t be for the Father because then they would be speaking for Chirst as well; you’ve already explained how “Jesus and the Father are one”.

Yet you see nothing wrong, no problem, no dilemma, with such a convoluted and twisted Christology.

Amazing, but I see the Trinitarians have long left the room, having abandoned hope of making any sense out of the public talk just heard.

If you say so....nothing I post will ever answer your ridiculously contrived questions so I will allow the judge of all of us to settle the dispute once and for all......howzat?

Lets see whom he chooses as his own....won't it be a hoot?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

View attachment 41495


At John 10:33, the online NWT clearly shows the NWT supports the Trinitarian position that the Jews thought Jesus had blasphemed by making himself Jehovah, and not for making himself “a god”. The box with the "Cited Scripture" is what pops up when you click the plus sign next to "blasphemy" and it refers to Leviticus 24:16 which states the abuser of Jehovah's name must be put to death without fail.

If John 10:33 states the Jews were stoning Jesus for making himself "God", then OF COURSE we would see a reference to Leviticus 24:16. But if the crime is for making himself “a god” the reader would have been pointed to the First Commandment (You shall have no other gods before me) and/or the Second Commandment (You shall make no idols) or even perhaps Deuteronomy 13:2 (…and if the prophet says: “Let us follow other gods…”).

The last place you expect a reader to be pointed to after an "a god" rendering is Leviticus 24:16 which supports the Trinitarian position of Jesus being stoned for claiming he was God.

.

I think I'm following you, Oeste.

In your attachment, you think the WT is contradicting itself, in saying why the Jews are blaming Jesus for blasphemy?

Leviticus 24:16 is about what? 'Abusing Jehovah's Name.'
That has nothing to do w/ a person claiming he is God. That would fall under 'usurping Jehovah's position / authority', not 'abusing His name'.

You're trying to find mistakes in the WT literature....Guess what? You might find one. (I have.) But this ain't one.

(All that effort! For naught.)

 

[Deeje]

I think I'm following you, Oeste.

In your attachment, you think the WT is contradicting itself, in saying why the Jews are blaming Jesus for blasphemy?

Leviticus 24:16 is about what? 'Abusing Jehovah's Name.'
That has nothing to do w/ a person claiming he is God. That would fall under 'usurping Jehovah's position / authority', not 'abusing His name'.

You're trying to find mistakes in the WT literature....Guess what? You might find one. (I have.) But this ain't one.

(All that effort! For naught.)

The classic strawman....beat that beggar to death and claim victory....

oh dear.....

 

[cataway]

If by him you mean Jesus I call him God when I do not call him man but for purposes of this thread, I am calling him “a god” in order to better understand Arian/Witness Christology. Think of me as a Trinitarian who has just invited you into his home one Saturday morning.

We've just read John 1:1, and how the Word was Jesus, and how, according to the NWT, Jesus was "a god".

Then @Deeje tells us in Jesus never claimed to be "a god" at all, even though his disciple who speaks for him clearly states he is.

This tells me that John clearly doesn't speak for Christ and thus the entirety of John must be suspect.

Now let me ask you a question. We have the NWT open. When John stated the Word was “a god” was he speaking solely for himself, or for the person that sent him?

We already have Deeje’s answer. What say you?

me and Deeje speak as one . we are in agreement

 

[Oeste]

I guess my post was a non-sequitur — my bad — but the sad facts revealing Christendom, most of whom are Trinitarian, to be blood-guilty before God are irrefutable.

My goodness! You have no idea how much I’d love to get into that. From my POV, JW’s are just as “blood-guilty”.

But that would get us away from thread theme

(I hope one day you remove yourself from their membership.)

I think you’re a kind hearted person HockeyCowboy and I understand where this is coming from. I enjoy the talks we have from time to time but rest assured I belong to Christ as do they.

Jehovah Witnesses believe the bride of Christ…the Christian church…consists of only 144,000 members throughout history. All others are considered “other sheep” that must associate with the Watchtower Organization in order to have any hope of salvation.

I certainly see no need to remove myself from the body of Christ and exchange it for an "associate’s" membership offered by a Kingdom Hall. Besides, leaving my church would make me an “apostate” wouldn’t it?

Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία ápostasía, "a defection or revolt") is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion that is contrary to one's previous religious beliefs.​

And we all know how Jehovah Witnesses feel about apostates!

Once you become a Witness at study, loyal members are expected to direct their attention only to today's Watchtower article and ask only those questions found at the bottom of the page. Other questions are considered “irrelevant”, “convoluted”, a sign you have “lack of knowledge” or signifies a need to “mature spiritually”.

After all, the thinking goes, if a question was really important the Watchtower would have asked and answered it already.

And that’s just for asking questions HockeyCowboy! Insisting on answers opens up a whole new can of worms that can lead to being “marked” by the congregation.

I could go on and on, but I don’t want to derail what’s shaping up to be a great thread

If the Jews really thought Jesus was saying that he was God, they definitely would have accused him of that at his Sanhedrin trial.
They never did.
Only that he said he was “the son of God”.

Notice your own argument. Your charge was not that he was “a son of God" (that is a son by adoption), but “the son of God” which makes him God by nature (by nature, the son of Man will always be Man, as the Son of God will always be God). You recognize there would be no basis to charge Jesus simply if he simply claimed he was "a son of God".

The Sanhedrin thought they were judging Jesus, when it was actually Jesus who was judging them.

God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”: ..." Psalm 82:1:​

Had Jesus claimed to be “a god” he would have been welcomed, heralded and promoted as a new breed of polytheistic Jew by the pagan Greeks and Romans. Also, Jehovah Witnesses are quick to tell us there were hundreds if not thousands of “gods” running around Israel in the form of judges, magistrates, and other powerful men. Were they threatened with stoning or brought before the Sanhedrin for making themselves "a god" as well?

The notion that “making yourself 'a god'” in 1st Century Israel gets you stoned or hauled before the Sanhedrin is simply not borne out by the facts, but I’d like to clear our 1st Dilemma before moving on to the 2nd.

That negates the mainstream view of John 8:58, too.

The WT has announced Jesus never claimed to be “a god”, yet their version of John 1:1 states he is “a god”. This teaching places Jesus at odds with his own, personally chosen disciple and negates the entire book of John and all of his writings.

It’s quite a dilemma.

 

[Oeste]

If you say so ....nothing I post will ever answer your ridiculously contrived questions so I will allow the judge of all of us to settle the dispute once and for all......howzat?

My goodness! Don't worry, I haven't left the room. I'm much more interested in getting answers.

Lets see whom he chooses as his own....won't it be a hoot?

Why would Witnesses wait till then?

Imagine Jehovah’s bitter disappointment at finding He can no longer send that huge, extra hot, fiery red meteor He had planned for Trinitarians, all because Witnesses failed to answer a few questions about Watchtower Christology.

Look, when the New System arrives some are going to point at us and ask "What on earth are they doing here?"

Wouldn't it be great to say "Oh, they were reading this nice WT article my group posted when Armageddon hit" rather than an embarrassing "We screwed up and that allowed them to stumble their way in"?

 

[cataway]

My goodness! You have no idea how much I’d love to get into that. From my POV, JW’s are just as “blood-guilty”.

But that would get us away from thread theme



I think you’re a kind hearted person HockeyCowboy and I understand where this is coming from. I enjoy the talks we have from time to time but rest assured I belong to Christ as do they.

Jehovah Witnesses believe the bride of Christ…the Christian church…consists of only 144,000 members throughout history. All others are considered “other sheep” that must associate with the Watchtower Organization in order to have any hope of salvation.

I certainly see no need to remove myself from the body of Christ and exchange it for an "associate’s" membership offered by a Kingdom Hall. Besides, leaving my church would make me an “apostate” wouldn’t it?

Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία ápostasía, "a defection or revolt") is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion that is contrary to one's previous religious beliefs.​

And we all know how Jehovah Witnesses feel about apostates!

Once you become a Witness at study, loyal members are expected to direct their attention only to today's Watchtower article and ask only those questions found at the bottom of the page. Other questions are considered “irrelevant”, “convoluted”, a sign you have “lack of knowledge” or signifies a need to “mature spiritually”.

After all, the thinking goes, if a question was really important the Watchtower would have asked and answered it already.

And that’s just for asking questions HockeyCowboy! Insisting on answers opens up a whole new can of worms that can lead to being “marked” by the congregation.

I could go on and on, but I don’t want to derail what’s shaping up to be a great thread



Notice your own argument. Your charge was not that he was “a son of God" (that is a son by adoption), but “the son of God” which makes him God by nature (by nature, the son of Man will always be Man, as the Son of God will always be God). You recognize there would be no basis to charge Jesus simply if he simply claimed he was "a son of God".

The Sanhedrin thought they were judging Jesus, when it was actually Jesus who was judging them.

God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”: ..." Psalm 82:1:​

Had Jesus claimed to be “a god” he would have been welcomed, heralded and promoted as a new breed of polytheistic Jew by the pagan Greeks and Romans. Also, Jehovah Witnesses are quick to tell us there were hundreds if not thousands of “gods” running around Israel in the form of judges, magistrates, and other powerful men. Were they threatened with stoning or brought before the Sanhedrin for making themselves "a god" as well?

The notion that “making yourself 'a god'” in 1st Century Israel gets you stoned or hauled before the Sanhedrin is simply not borne out by the facts, but I’d like to clear our 1st Dilemma before moving on to the 2nd.



The WT has announced Jesus never claimed to be “a god”, yet their version of John 1:1 states he is “a god”. This teaching places Jesus at odds with his own, personally chosen disciple and negates the entire book of John and all of his writings.

It’s quite a dilemma.

me thinks you missed something .Jesus never claimed to be God

 

[Oeste]

I think I'm following you, Oeste.
In your attachment, you think the WT is contradicting itself, in saying why the Jews are blaming Jesus for blasphemy?

Bingo!

Leviticus 24:16 is about what? 'Abusing Jehovah's Name.'

Exactly!

Here it is:

So the abuser of Jehovah’s name should be put to death without fail.+ The entire assembly should stone him without fail. The foreign resident should be put to death the same as the native for his abusing the Name. (Leviticus 24:16, NWT)​

That has nothing to do w/ a person claiming he is God.

So if I claim I am Jehovah God, it's not an abuse of the Divine Name? Aren't JW's the first to tell us that the Jews wouldn't even pronounce the Name due to "superstition"? How could they then not see such a declaration but as an abuse of the Divine Name??

But that's all water under the bridge HockeyCowboy. Remember, for purposes of this thread, we're assuming the NWT's "a god" translation is correct, so the idea that Jesus is God is off the table for now.

That would fall under 'usurping Jehovah's position / authority', not 'abusing His name'.

So making yourself "a god", as the NWT teaches, was considered by the Jews as an abuse of the Divine Name punishable by stoning (remember, the NWT is pointing us to Leviticus 24:16) but making yourself Jehovah God is only a "usurping of Jehovah's position/authority"?

That doesn't sound exactly right HockeyCowboy. If I'm making myself Jehovah then I'm pretty sure the Jews are thinking I'm not only abusing the Name but I'm usurping His authority.

However, if I am only making myself "a god" then I'm making myself no more or no less than any other judge, magistrate or "god" walking around at the time. Why would they be stoning Jesus for that, and why on earth would the NWT point us to Leviticus 24:16?

You're trying to find mistakes in the WT literature....Guess what? You might find one. (I have.) But this ain't one.

This, as a certain person would say, is huuuuuuge. But I'm not trying to find errors in WT literature. I'm trying to reconcile what I do find, with Jehovah Witnesses as my guides. That way the errors will find themselves.

(All that effort! For naught.)

Not quite "for naught" but definitely 4 knots...and counting?

 

[Oeste]

me and Deeje speak as one . we are in agreement

Great! Then you may want to help her out and actually "speak" to the question I put to you. Here it is again:

When John stated the Word was “a god” was he speaking solely for himself, or for the person that sent him?

This should not be difficult. The NWT tells us the Word (Jesus) was "a god" at John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.​

But the Watchtower tells us Jesus never claimed to be "a god":

So who is correct? Is it John, which calls him "a god" at John 1:1, or Jesus, who claims no such thing at John 10:33?

me thinks you missed something .Jesus never claimed to be God

Me thinks you missed my opening post.

"Jesus is God" is off the table for this thread. We are simply trying to reconcile the NWT's "a god" translation at John 10:33.

In other words there is no need to rail fruitlessly against the Trinity. I've kindly asked my Trinitarian friends not to bring it up. The only thing I'm asking our Witness/Arian friends in return is to explain and/or defend the NWT's "a god" translation at John 10:33.

With no Trinity to argue against this should be relatively easy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My goodness! You have no idea how much I’d love to get into that. From my POV, JW’s are just as “blood-guilty”.

But that would get us away from thread theme



I think you’re a kind hearted person HockeyCowboy and I understand where this is coming from. I enjoy the talks we have from time to time but rest assured I belong to Christ as do they.

Jehovah Witnesses believe the bride of Christ…the Christian church…consists of only 144,000 members throughout history. All others are considered “other sheep” that must associate with the Watchtower Organization in order to have any hope of salvation.

I certainly see no need to remove myself from the body of Christ and exchange it for an "associate’s" membership offered by a Kingdom Hall. Besides, leaving my church would make me an “apostate” wouldn’t it?

Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία ápostasía, "a defection or revolt") is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion that is contrary to one's previous religious beliefs.​

And we all know how Jehovah Witnesses feel about apostates!

Once you become a Witness at study, loyal members are expected to direct their attention only to today's Watchtower article and ask only those questions found at the bottom of the page. Other questions are considered “irrelevant”, “convoluted”, a sign you have “lack of knowledge” or signifies a need to “mature spiritually”.

After all, the thinking goes, if a question was really important the Watchtower would have asked and answered it already.

And that’s just for asking questions HockeyCowboy! Insisting on answers opens up a whole new can of worms that can lead to being “marked” by the congregation.

I could go on and on, but I don’t want to derail what’s shaping up to be a great thread



Notice your own argument. Your charge was not that he was “a son of God" (that is a son by adoption), but “the son of God” which makes him God by nature (by nature, the son of Man will always be Man, as the Son of God will always be God). You recognize there would be no basis to charge Jesus simply if he simply claimed he was "a son of God".

The Sanhedrin thought they were judging Jesus, when it was actually Jesus who was judging them.

God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”: ..." Psalm 82:1:​

Had Jesus claimed to be “a god” he would have been welcomed, heralded and promoted as a new breed of polytheistic Jew by the pagan Greeks and Romans. Also, Jehovah Witnesses are quick to tell us there were hundreds if not thousands of “gods” running around Israel in the form of judges, magistrates, and other powerful men. Were they threatened with stoning or brought before the Sanhedrin for making themselves "a god" as well?

The notion that “making yourself 'a god'” in 1st Century Israel gets you stoned or hauled before the Sanhedrin is simply not borne out by the facts, but I’d like to clear our 1st Dilemma before moving on to the 2nd.



The WT has announced Jesus never claimed to be “a god”, yet their version of John 1:1 states he is “a god”. This teaching places Jesus at odds with his own, personally chosen disciple and negates the entire book of John and all of his writings.

It’s quite a dilemma.

How sad, to me, that in many instances you attribute to Jesus, what should be attributed to His Father, “the ONLY True God.” That’s what Jesus did, you know.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Bingo!



Exactly!


So if I claim I am Jehovah God, it's not an abuse of the Divine Name?






So making yourself "a god", as the NWT teaches, was considered by the Jews as an abuse of the Divine Name punishable by stoning (remember, the NWT is pointing us to Leviticus 24:16) but making yourself Jehovah God is only a "usurping of Jehovah's position/authority"?

That doesn't sound exactly right HockeyCowboy. If I'm making myself Jehovah then I'm pretty sure the Jews are thinking I'm not only abusing the Name but I'm usurping His authority.

However, if I am only making myself "a god" then I'm making myself no more or no less than any other judge, magistrate or "god" walking around at the time. Why would they be stoning Jesus for that, and why on earth would the NWT point us to Leviticus 24:16?



This, as a certain person would say, is huuuuuuge. But I'm not trying to find errors in WT literature. I'm trying to reconcile what I do find, with Jehovah Witnesses as my guides. That way the errors will find themselves.



Not quite "for naught" but definitely 4 knots...and counting?

But at his Sanhedrin trial, recorded in all 4 Gospels, they never accused Jesus of saying or claiming he was God!!
So what you (& all trinitarians) think the Jews said or thought, is wrong!
They definitely would’ve used that against Him, at his trial!

That negates the trinitarian view of JOHN 8:58, also. (I think I already said that, somewhere?)