Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Brian2]

If you love God, you show others about Him. Like Jesus had disciples. His disciples were taught and passed on their knowledge. If those who understood things kept quiet, as Jesus said, the stones would cry out. Now what would they cry out about? Either this world is going to be done away with, or it is not. Either Jesus is the son of God with great power given to him, or he is not. Either people will be mercilessly tortured forever or they will not. And so on...

Yes it is good to tell people the truth about things.
So anyway, what do you think about Heb 2:10 and Romans 11:36?

 

[Brian2]

I have news for you. Eternal doesn't mean no beginning. It means no end. Furthermore for Jesus to be the eternal father means something other than his Father being eternal Father. Two fathers. Both for everlasting life in righteousness.

If Jesus is the Father of Eternity we could say that Jesus created time. It does not mean that He is His Father however.

 

[Brian2]

Was Jesus, in your opinion, always the Son??

Yes.

 

[Brian2]

How can the son do everything the father can do if he couldn't fly up to heaven before he died? I hate to say this but I will. Because he was enclosed in the flesh and couldn't get out?

How do you know He couldn't fly to heaven before He died?
But yes He was a man and came to do the will of His Father, as a man, with bodily limitations.
When you say enclosed in flesh are you saying that His spirit dwelt in the flesh, as in a tent, as the Bible tells us? No I guess you aren't.

 

[Brian2]

What does having the same nature mean? Come on, according to the trinity, it's like Jesus was a double whammy. One God and one not God. Ridiculous to say they were equally divine, whatever that means.

If I said that Jesus had the nature of a man, then I'm sure you would understand. What is not to understand in saying that Jesus had also the nature of His Father, Divine nature, God nature. '
The man Jesus was (and still is a man) and is a Divine man. On earth His body calling Him to rebel against the will of His God and Father but He overcame that carnal nature and followed His Divine nature, He was led by His Divine spirit and His mind was set on God and what He wanted.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it is unreasonable to expect JW's to be rational about that.

 

[Muffled]

Good point OB. One cannot rely on translation alone but on other scripture supporting what is believed to be truth. Who were the translators is the key question, and what biases did they bring into their translation?

John 1:1, which is touted as THE trinity proof text, is undone by John 1:18, just a few verses later. "No man has ever seen God".....how many saw Jesus?

If Jesus is described there as "the only begotten god" (theos) then he needs a begetter. He was God's "only begotten son" before he came to this earth. He is a creation of his Father who is also his God, even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)

We need to understand that "theos" in Greek does not only mean a divinity, but also one with divine authority. Jesus certainly qualified to be a "god" in that sense, as did Israel's human judges as he mentioned in the next verses. (John 10:34-36)

If we look at John 10:25-33....(Strongs NASB) in context....

“The Jews G2453 then G3767 gathered G2944 around G2944 Him, and were saying G3004 to Him, “How long G2193 will You keep G142 us in suspense? G5590 G142 If G1487 You are the Christ, G5547 tell G3004 us plainly.” G3954
Jesus G2424 answered G611 them, “I told G3004 you, and you do not believe; G4100 the works G2041 that I do G4160 in My Father’s G3962 name, G3686 these G3778 testify G3140 of Me.
“But you do not believe G4100 because G3754 you are not of My sheep. G4263. . . .

My Father, G3962 who G3739 has given G1325 them to Me, is greater G3173 than all; G3956 and no G3762 one G3762 is able G1410 to snatch G726 them out of the Father’s G3962 hand. G549
I and the Father G3962 are G1520 one” G1520. . . .


The Jews G2453 answered G611 Him, “For a good G2570 work G2041 we do not stone G3034 You, but for blasphemy; G988 and because G3754 You, being G1510 a man, G444 make G4160 Yourself G4572 out to be God.” G2316

"Theos" in verse 33 is without the definite article, just as it is in John 1:1, indicating that it does not relate to Jehovah, but that claiming Jehovah as his Father made him divine.....a god.
Was Jesus claiming to be God? The Jews were looking to fix a charge of blasphemy on him so that they could get rid of him.....
But he answered....
"do you say G3004 of Him, whom G3739 the Father G3962 sanctified G37 and sent G649 into the world, G2889 ‘You are blaspheming,’ G987 because G3754 I said, G3004 ‘I am G1510 the Son G5207 of God’? G2316"

He said he was "the son of God".....never once did he say he was God.

John 17:22 proves that John 10:30 is not talking about Jesus and his Father being part of a godhead....because Jesus plainly states that..... “The glory G1391 which G3739 You have given G1325 Me I have given G1325 to them, that they may be one, G1520 just G2531 as We are one; G1520

Was Jesus claiming to be part of a trinity with his disciples as well? Or was he stating a unity of belief and purpose?

There is no way to prove a trinity using the Bible because there is more that refutes it than there is to support it.

I believe you are right about context. There is a great deal of context supporting the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity that there should be no doubt that "The word is God" is correct.

 

[Muffled]

Wow!
Powerful debate, right there.

I will try to remember your points about John 1:1. and John 1:18.

I believe I see no problem with the divinity of Jesus and John 1:18. You still can't see God in Jesus. However you can hear God speak in an audible voice.

 

[Brian2]

I believe I see no problem with the divinity of Jesus and John 1:18. You still can't see God in Jesus. However you can hear God speak in an audible voice.

1Kings 19:11 The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.”
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

It is interesting that God was in the gentle whisper that Elijah heard.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe I see no problem with the divinity of Jesus and John 1:18.

I find that verse to be strange.
I can see God wherever look, any direction. But then, I'm a Deist.

You still can't see God in Jesus. However you can hear God speak in an audible voice.

Yes, I can see God in Jesus, as in everything.... every thing.
And Yes, I can hear God in every sound.
But then, I'm a Deist.

 

[YoursTrue]

God has known the fate of everyone from before they were born, and God has ordained the salvation of those who will be saved.
Eph 1:4 For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love 5 He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will,…
God knows the future and what He sees and does not change is what He has ordained imo.
Romans 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
How do you see these passages?

I see that the idea of God knowing the fate of everyone from before they were born is not a true biblical concept. It would be ridiculous knowing Adam and Eve would sin. You may imagine that he did, but I do not believe that. Because the Bible does not say that He did. One may explain it in an imaginary or philosophical way, but it wouldn't make sense.
Ephesians 1:4 does not refer to those saved (or doomed) from before they were born. The 'us' refers to those who accepted Christ. And the opportunity for salvation comes to those who while alive accept Christ as the one through whom Jehovah affords salvation. Otherwise, if seen as you do and possibly Calvin did, along with the idea of eternal torture in hellfire forever and ever (yes, everlasting...) that makes God cruel. Very, very cruel. So taking that in harmony with love, it wouldn't be "love" for someone to knowingly allow someone to be born with the only path leading to eternal torture. The idea is not only reprehensible, but disgusting. You may keep arguing, and I may answer for a while, but a God who would allow eternal (no beginning?) torture is awful. Therefore, Ephesians 1:4 is not as you interpret it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why not? Because the Holy Spirit is not the topic of John 1:1. The other Gospels approach the origins of Jesus from other angles but John does it in an absolute way and tells us that He was already there at the beginning and that He did not come into existence.
I never get an answer when I approach the topic of never ending time into the past and say that is impossible because if it were true then we would not be at this point in time yet.
What do you think of that reasoning?
I know you cannot understand existence without time (I AM) but that is no reason to not believe it exists. Can you understand an infinite number of minutes into that past which has reached this minute and goes on even further? iow infinite is getting bigger all the time.

Jesus was not referring to his never-beginning existence as part of a trinity of persons as if they all three did not have a beginning, and I haven't even gone into translation yet.
Jesus was born on earth by means of holy spirit. (He--Jesus called the Word--was in heaven with God before that.) Therefore ... it IS in part the topic of John 1:1. I agree that time as we know it was instituted by God for us earthlings to be able to comprehend events. Since I was not around before I was born, I know the date (supposedly) of my birth -- my parents told me -- (lol) -- I count the years. But lots of things (like on what 'day' God started to make the earth compatible for human dwelling) is truly unknown by us humans. Now, unless you think that the Word (Logos) was WITH another entity (being?) called God which some believe is composed of the Father and the Holy Spirit ( that is two, and the Word being the third person of that combination), we have a little itty bitty problem here. (P.S. I have a birth certificate stating the day and year on which I was born. So that helps me realize I was very likely 'born' on that day.)
The Word was in the beginning. The Word was with God. So let's say the Word was one person of the Trinity, isn't that what many believe? Let's start there. So was the Word all three of the godpersons? I would say not. He was ONE of the three godpersons some say make up God, wasn't he?
Luke 1:35 - "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
Many translations say at John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word is generally known to be Jesus. The Son. As in always there without beginning. With the other two persons called God always there without beginning. (But it says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..." and yes, most translations say the Word was God.) But that poses problems for the trinity. Because -- the Word was WITH God. The Word - one person. God - how many persons?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK thanks.
I would say that the Word is exactly like His Father in all ways including the fact that He did not come into existence (John 1:3) and in that respect there must have been at least 2 gods around from eternity. One big one and one lesser one because that one received all He has from His Father.
That is not really OK scripturally so the Trinitarians solve it by saying that the lesser god is the Son whom therefore is subordinate to His Father and the lesser and bigger god, even though different consciousnesses, have to be the same God.
Jesus elaborates a bit when He says the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.
But yes the Father is the one true God when seen as having the Son in Him from everlasting.
The WT seems to resolve the issue by denying John 1:3 and coming up with an meaning for "beginning" that fit with scripture as to what "beginning" signifies.
Also I guess I would have to say that the Word was not really a lesser god because when John 1:1 says "..........and the Word was God" what language people tell us is that "God" here is a quality thing and so the verse is saying that the Word was qualitatively the same as "the God" which He was with.....................from eternity.
Maybe you now say that "the God" was bigger, but as I said that "a god" thing is not good scripturally
without denying John 1:3 and other passages which show that Son to be exactly life His Father in all ways, including size.

To say that the Word was "a god" does not in any way deny that Jesus was and is in a very, very high and powerful position. The problem here (for trinitarians) is that Jesus was given power and authority at a certain point. Therefore -- (I leave that for you to think about).

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think that the prehuman Jesus, who was not brought into existence ever (John 1:3) and so was the Divine Son of God (meaning He has the same nature as His Father) was not the Divine Son of God when He became a man?
Jesus was equal in nature to His Father when He became a man if He was that before becoming a man.
It actually is there that the Word never came into existence. (John 1:3) It is there also that Jesus is Yahweh.

John 1:3 is similar to John 1:1 in that 'in the beginning' does not mean that Jesus (the Word) had no beginning. As I was researching this, I came across Revelatio 3:14. And I am startled to learn of the differences of translation there. Notice these differences, then tell me what you think. (about the differences of translation and perhaps what it means in the King James Version and English Standard) It's very interesting.

New International Version
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

New Living Translation
“Write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea. This is the message from the one who is the Amen—the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s new creation:

English Standard Version
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation."

Last but not least, I turn to the King James Bible which says:
"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;"

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think that the prehuman Jesus, who was not brought into existence ever (John 1:3) and so was the Divine Son of God (meaning He has the same nature as His Father) was not the Divine Son of God when He became a man?

I think we have to define what the word divine means.

 

[cataway]

that and the word spirit

 

[Oeste]

Can you clarify these statements?:

Yes, everlasting certainly can mean "no begiinning."

There's no way everlasting there means 'no beginning.' No end, yes. But not no beginning.

As far as I can determine, everlasting has always meant "without end".

To say that the Word was "a god" does not in any way deny that Jesus was and is in a very, very high and powerful position.

This reminds me of something I posted before:

Magnus: “Tertius, it has begun. The Romans have arrived and demand everyone assemble in the square. We must acknowledge the Emperor is a god or they will declare us atheists to be escorted to the arena. I fear what will happen next but we must all remain strong.”

Tertius: “I don’t know why you worry so much Magnus. Gather the people in the square and let’s get this over with.”

Magnus and his fellow Christians are first to gather in the square. They refuse to bow or acknowledge the emperor as a god. Their refusal clearly marks them as “atheists” and a threat to the empire. The soldiers quickly shackle them to the back of a cart destined for the arena. Their land will be confiscated and their lives martyred by the morrow.

Then the JW’s are brought forward into the square. One by one they bow before the emperor as they publicly acknowledge before everyone he is a god.

The Christians are dumbfounded and in shock. “Tertius!” Magnus implores, “How can you do or say such a thing? Know ye not we have but one God?!”

Tertius begins to shake his head as he slowly approaches Magnus. When he is out of earshot of the emperor he abruptly faces him and replies:

“Silly Magnus, are you and your so-called Christians as blind as the Emperor, unable to distinguish 'obeisance' from 'true worship'? Besides, we never called the emperor 'God' with a capital “G” we simply called him 'god' with a small.”​

We can only imagine how early Christian history would have changed had Jehovah Witnesses actually been around.

The problem here (for trinitarians) is that Jesus was given power and authority at a certain point. Therefore -- (I leave that for you to think about).

Arians forget that Jesus, as Son of God, had power and authority before that 'certain point":

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).​

It is Jesus, Son of Man that is given this authority.

Also notice that Jesus is asking the Father to "....glorify thou me with thine own self...".

Can you (or any Arian/Witness) tell us how this is possible when God shares His glory with no one ?

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)

As you can see, the problem is not with Trinitarians who say Jesus is God but with Arians and/or Witnesses who claim he is some other god.

At this point in the study, my experience has been that Witnesses will say "You can't tell me the Trinity..." or quickly raise another topic which of course allows them to leave this underlying question unanswered.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you clarify these statements?:





As far as I can determine, everlasting has always meant "without end".

I was looking at Psalm 90:2 in the various translations. Some say eternal, others say everlasting. You tell the difference perhaps?

l...We can only imagine how early Christian history would have changed had Jehovah Witnesses actually been around.
...

Arians forget that Jesus, as Son of God, had power and authority before that 'certain point":

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).​

It is Jesus, Son of Man that is given this authority.

Also notice that Jesus is asking the Father to "....glorify thou me with thine own self...".

Can you (or any Arian/Witness) tell us how this is possible when God shares His glory with no one

I am not an Arian, despite your protests. Jesus had power as the "Word." But he was GIVEN power and authority. It seems you leave that detail out.
Again, you have it really mixed up. Which is a shame since you don't admit fundamentals. In good conscience, if you are honest with yourself and others, you should accept the context of those verses. In regard to John 17:5, why don't you go into the mysterious trinity explanation which you already are doing anyway by misusing the scriptures. After you explain how Jesus asked for the Father to glorify him with "his own self," then perhaps you can explain how God was with God at John 1:1 if there is only one God. Three in each God (or godperson)? Or maybe one in one God(person) and two in the other. Or maybe they're just all the same, different and one at the same time while God was WITH God, hmm? And the Word was WITH God. hmmm was God and with God, my oh my, what a difficulty for trinitarians. Keep going, it's interesting.
Not saying though that I will keep it up with you -- so -- (have a nice day). Looking forward to the future.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you clarify these statements?:





As far as I can determine, everlasting has always meant "without end".



This reminds me of something I posted before:

Magnus: “Tertius, it has begun. The Romans have arrived and demand everyone assemble in the square. We must acknowledge the Emperor is a god or they will declare us atheists to be escorted to the arena. I fear what will happen next but we must all remain strong.”

Tertius: “I don’t know why you worry so much Magnus. Gather the people in the square and let’s get this over with.”

Magnus and his fellow Christians are first to gather in the square. They refuse to bow or acknowledge the emperor as a god. Their refusal clearly marks them as “atheists” and a threat to the empire. The soldiers quickly shackle them to the back of a cart destined for the arena. Their land will be confiscated and their lives martyred by the morrow.

Then the JW’s are brought forward into the square. One by one they bow before the emperor as they publicly acknowledge before everyone he is a god.

The Christians are dumbfounded and in shock. “Tertius!” Magnus implores, “How can you do or say such a thing? Know ye not we have but one God?!”

Tertius begins to shake his head as he slowly approaches Magnus. When he is out of earshot of the emperor he abruptly faces him and replies:

“Silly Magnus, are you and your so-called Christians as blind as the Emperor, unable to distinguish 'obeisance' from 'true worship'? Besides, we never called the emperor 'God' with a capital “G” we simply called him 'god' with a small.”​

We can only imagine how early Christian history would have changed had Jehovah Witnesses actually been around.




Arians forget that Jesus, as Son of God, had power and authority before that 'certain point":

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).​

It is Jesus, Son of Man that is given this authority.

Also notice that Jesus is asking the Father to "....glorify thou me with thine own self...".

Can you (or any Arian/Witness) tell us how this is possible when God shares His glory with no one ?

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)

As you can see, the problem is not with Trinitarians who say Jesus is God but with Arians and/or Witnesses who claim he is some other god.

At this point in the study, my experience has been that Witnesses will say "You can't tell me the Trinity..." or quickly raise another topic which of course allows them to leave this underlying question unanswered.

He is God's SON. Also called the Word. Go back to John 1:1 again -- look up the word god -- figure the capitals -- then look up divine.

 

[YoursTrue]

that and the word spirit

Righto. Unfortunately, we're stalled because some think that the Word is a trinity or something like that. So it's like the Word was God (one?of the three? or three of the three?) with God, another three? or two...yes, a real real mystery I suppose some would say. But to some, thank God, the scriptures are clear.