Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

I am not an Arian, despite your protests

Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christological doctrine which believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father, and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him), but the Son is also God (i.e. God the Son). Arian theology was first attributed to Arius (Wikipedia)

The above is the flat, basic tenet of Arianism. When the WT denies this, it will no longer be Arian. You need not adopt every view of Arius to be Arian, but when you accept his core beliefs....

Jesus had power as the "Word." But he was GIVEN power and authority. It seems you leave that detail out.

Actually that's the detail I was accenting, not omitting.

How can Jehovah give Jesus even a thimble of glory when He doesn't share his glory with another? If He's giving Jesus glory then He is sharing that glory. It seems you leave that detail out.

Also, I want to once again point out the following: Jesus is asking the Father to "....glorify thou me with thine own self...".

Jesus is asking the Father to glorify him with His (the Father's) own self. That is an absolutely absurd request if Jesus is not God. How or why on earth would the Father glorify another god? What on earth would request Jesus to even request some of the Father's glory? Was he unaware God shares His glory with no one?

After you explain how Jesus asked for the Father to glorify him with "his own self,"

Make sure you're reading this correctly. 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.

There is only one God at John 1:1. It's actually JW's who claim there are two.

 

[YoursTrue]

Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christological doctrine which believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father, and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him), but the Son is also God (i.e. God the Son). Arian theology was first attributed to Arius (Wikipedia)

The above is the flat, basic tenet of Arianism. When the WT denies this, it will no longer be Arian. You need not adopt every view of Arius to be Arian, but when you accept his core beliefs....



Actually that's the detail I was accenting, not omitting.

How can Jehovah give Jesus even a thimble of glory when He doesn't share his glory with another? If He's giving Jesus glory then He is sharing that glory. It seems you leave that detail out.

Also, I want to once again point out the following: Jesus is asking the Father to "....glorify thou me with thine own self...".

Jesus is asking the Father to glorify him with His (the Father's) own self. That is an absolutely absurd request if Jesus is not God. How or why on earth would the Father glorify another god? What on earth would request Jesus to even request some of the Father's glory? Was he unaware God shares His glory with no one?



Make sure you're reading this correctly. Jesus asked for the Father to glorify him with "His own self".




There is only one God at John 1:1. It's actually JW's who claim there are two.

You can't have God with God and then say it means three or four persons.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Peter 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake. 21 Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him; and so your faith and hope are in God.…

Matthew 25:34
Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Acts 2:23
He was delivered up by God's set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

Ephesians 1:4
For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love

1 Peter 1:2
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Revelation 13:8
And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

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.

Nobody mentioned eternal torture except you. If it is not in the Bible then do not believe it. It certainly is no reason to deny that God knew who would be saved and who would not be saved from before the foundation of the world,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just as the Bible tells us.
Did God write names in the book of life from before the foundation of the world? According to Rev 13:8 those names were there before the foundation of the world. I guess that means God knew also the names of people who were not going to be saved.
Still God is patient with evil people, not willing that any should be lost, and keeps calling people until all who will be saved have come to Christ.
Surely you must have better reason to deny what the Bible tells us.
Do you think God is cruel for creating us even if He knew that there would be people who would not be saved?
Do you think God should force everyone to be saved?
What has the doctrine of hell got to do with it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Peter 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake. 21 Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him; and so your faith and hope are in God.…

Matthew 25:34
Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Acts 2:23
He was delivered up by God's set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

Ephesians 1:4
For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love

1 Peter 1:2
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Revelation 13:8
And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.



Nobody mentioned eternal torture except you. If it is not in the Bible then do not believe it. It certainly is no reason to deny that God knew who would be saved and who would not be saved from before the foundation of the world,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just as the Bible tells us.
Did God write names in the book of life from before the foundation of the world? According to Rev 13:8 those names were there before the foundation of the world. I guess that means God knew also the names of people who were not going to be saved.
Still God is patient with evil people, not willing that any should be lost, and keeps calling people until all who will be saved have come to Christ.
Surely you must have better reason to deny what the Bible tells us.
Do you think God is cruel for creating us even if He knew that there would be people who would not be saved?
Do you think God should force everyone to be saved?
What has the doctrine of hell got to do with it?

A lot. Because if God knows who will be saved and who won't beforehand, why bother sending his son to suffer and die? Your idea of foreknowledge is not that it means God knows who will be saved from the moment of conception. Or maybe you might figure even before. Just like God sent his only begotten son, he also knows there would be many who would not go against him. He could have knocked off Adam and Eve immediately and made another couple, but He did not, because he knew there would be those who love him despite their inheriting sin.

 

[YoursTrue]

Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christological doctrine which believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father, and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him), but the Son is also God (i.e. God the Son). Arian theology was first attributed to Arius (Wikipedia)

The above is the flat, basic tenet of Arianism. When the WT denies this, it will no longer be Arian. You need not adopt every view of Arius to be Arian, but when you accept his core beliefs....



Actually that's the detail I was accenting, not omitting.

How can Jehovah give Jesus even a thimble of glory when He doesn't share his glory with another? If He's giving Jesus glory then He is sharing that glory. It seems you leave that detail out.

Also, I want to once again point out the following: Jesus is asking the Father to "....glorify thou me with thine own self...".

Jesus is asking the Father to glorify him with His (the Father's) own self. That is an absolutely absurd request if Jesus is not God. How or why on earth would the Father glorify another god? What on earth would request Jesus to even request some of the Father's glory? Was he unaware God shares His glory with no one?



Make sure you're reading this correctly. Jesus asked for the Father to glorify him with "His own self".




There is only one God at John 1:1. It's actually JW's who claim there are two.

So sorry but I follow Jesus as I see him. I don't believe there are too many of Arius's writings around. Similarly while I agree with Servetus that Jesus is not God equal to God, I am rather sure I wouldn't agree with all of his teachings. And it is very possible that in the resurrection they will understand the truth about God. I am also sure that neither are burning in hellfire as some religions teach it, but will be resurrected where people like Calvin will not be allowed to torture and kill anyone.

 

[Oeste]

You can't have God with God and then say it means three or four persons.

If you have God with God then you have two persons, not three or four. It is Jehovah Witnesses who have one God (the Father) with another God (Jesus) which means two Gods. They then have a plethora of other gods whom they do NOT condemn as “gods”, but raise them up as “powerful people” cementing their theology as polytheistic.

There is no “God with God” in the Trinity. There is only God. There is also a notable ability to actually harmonize scripture that is totally missing from Arianism. As shown above, in Arianism you cannot explain why the Father gives (shares) His glory with Jesus (John 17:5) when He explicitly states He doesn’t share His glory with anyone (Isaiah 42:8).

Then of course there's Isaiah 44:24:

I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth? ​

Of course, it's the Jehovah Witnesses who proclaim it was the arch angel Michael.

I don't believe there are too many of Arius's writings around.

His doctrines are certainly around, reaching their heyday at the Council at Nicea.

Similarly while I agree with Servetus that Jesus is not God equal to God,

There is only one God and all the rest are false Gods, or not Gods at all. As such you cannot have "God equal to God".

I am also sure that neither are burning in hellfire as some religions teach it, but will be resurrected where people like Calvin will not be allowed to torture and kill anyone.

Or perhaps where there won't be people like Moses who murder or David who schemes and plots to get the wives of husbands. As scripture says: Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (Mat 7:1)

Like @Brian2 I have no idea where hell fire comes into the discussion or even Calvin, but now that you mentioned it, it does bring a story to mind:

Two Americans, a Christian and a Jehovah Witness were stationed in Yemen. The Christian as a missionary and the Witness as a pioneer. It is illegal to convert Muslims to another faith in Yemen, but both felt the urge to spread the gospel message into places where the need was great.

One day the missionary was captured by Ansar Al-sharia, a militant Al-Qaeda offshoot and the next so was the pioneer. For 5 months no one heard from them, leaving their families and loved ones to anguish incessantly about their fate. Were they alive or were they dead?

It was a cold, early Wednesday morning when friends and neighbors began to call, asking them to please turn on their TV set. Al-sharia had released a short video showing two gaunt captives who had for months been imprisoned, chained and shackled in a dank dark cell. Their spokesman said the two had been tried for crimes against Islam and found guilty. But they were merciful; here the two religious "Crusaders" would remain in torment for the rest of their days.

When the local television interviewed the Christian family, they were overjoyed their son was still alive. They praised the militant group for sparing their son's life.

But a second crew dispatched to the Jehovah's Witness family showed them to be despondent. They thought it inhumane to keep their son alive under such conditions and it would be better to grant him a quick death.​

Of these two storied families, which would you say showed more love and compassion toward their son?

 

[Brian2]

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?

The Father is the only true God and His Son was with and in Him in the beginning just as His Holy Spirit was in Him and with Him. One God, 3 persons. Not 3 Gods and not one God and a couple of little gods and not anything else. One God, the Father in whom is His Son and His Holy Spirit.

 

[Brian2]

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).

It's no problem. The power and authority belonging to the Father also belongs to the Son but the Son is the Son and does not take His inheritance, He waits to be given it.

 

[Brian2]

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;"

The primary meaning is "beginning" but in John's writings the meaning of "first in time" is only used once. A more appropriate meaning at Rev 3:14 is "first in rank" or even "origin" or "active cause".
This is especially so because we actually know from other parts of scripture that Jesus/the Word was not created/brought into existence because through Him ALL THINGS came into existence.
He is the "active cause" (which "through" no doubt tells us) and He is the "first in rank" as Col 1:15 tells us.
Arche Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

 

[Brian2]

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

When I use "divine" I mean "of or from God".
There are other meanings which give other meanings however. I know the WT likes these other definitions and has even used them in such places as Col 2:9
Col 2:9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.
This lessens the impact of some verses and actually changes the meaning as in the above verse (Col 2:9) where the word they translate as "divine quality" actually means "absolute deity".
I think the word is found only once in the NT and is rare also in other old Greek manuscripts, but always means "absolute deity" when used.

 

[Brian2]

that and the word spirit

Pneuma Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

 

[Brian2]

A lot. Because if God knows who will be saved and who won't beforehand, why bother sending his son to suffer and die? Your idea of foreknowledge is not that it means God knows who will be saved from the moment of conception. Or maybe you might figure even before. Just like God sent his only begotten son, he also knows there would be many who would not go against him. He could have knocked off Adam and Eve immediately and made another couple, but He did not, because he knew there would be those who love him despite their inheriting sin.

There are a lot of verses that tell us God knew who would be saved and so who would not be saved, yes, but you do not believe them, why not?
We are saved through the work of Jesus suffering and death. If Jesus had not come and died then God could not know those saved through the blood of Jesus. Jesus came to save and without Jesus who would be saved?
My idea of foreknowledge IS that God knew from before the foundation of the world, who would be saved and who would not.
As you say, God could have gotten rid of Adam and Eve and started again, but no, because He knew those who would be saved and loves us.
How could God know that there would be those who love Him without knowing the future?

 

[cataway]

Pneuma Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

or maybe supernatural being, non-physical entity, teem spirit ,school spirit, alcohol spirits or even holy spirit

 

[TiggerII]

Brian2 wrote concerning arche/arkhe:

The primary meaning is "beginning" but in John's writings the meaning of "first in time" is only used once. A more appropriate meaning at Rev 3:14 is "first in rank" or even "origin" or "active cause".

...................................

However,

Since John wrote Rev. 3:14, does John really ever use arkhe/arche to mean "first in rank," “origin,” or “ruler”?

In all the writings of John you will find that he never uses arkhe (ἀρχὴ) to mean “ruler” but, more properly, always uses arkhon (ἄρχων). If you will check the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (1981), you will find that even the very trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) never translates John’s uses of arkhe as “ruler” but does translate arkhon for “ruler” eight times: John 3:1; 7:26; 7:48; 12:31; 12:42; 14:30; 16:11; and Rev. 1:5. Not only is this word (arkhon) always used with the meaning of “ruler” by John, but it is the only word he uses for “ruler”! (underlined verses use the plural form)

Notice that the only use of “ruler” in Revelation by John, is, of course, arkhon: “from Jesus Christ, ... the first-born of the dead, and the ruler [arkhon] of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5, NASB; cf. ASV; JB; NEB; REB; CEB; CEV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; NCV; NIV; NKJV; NLT; ERV; ESV; GNB (TEV); GW; HCSB; ISV; LEB; MEV; Mounce; ETRV; WEB; YLT; Barclay’s translation; and a number of others (such as KJV which render it “prince of the kings...”). And it is highly significant that it is applied to Jesus in a way that most likely would have been duplicated at Rev. 3:14 if he had also meant “ruler” to describe himself there.

To pretend that “ruler” was intended by John in Rev. 3:14 not only ignores John’s strict adherence to always using forms of arkhon to mean “ruler,” but also ignores the clear scriptural Messianic use of the terms arkhon and arkhe! The well-known Messianic scripture of Micah 5:2 sets the pattern for uses of arkhon as applied to the Messiah. The ancient Septuagint version, often quoted by the NT writers, renders Micah 5:2, “out of thee [Bethlehem] shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler [arkhonta, a form of arkhon] of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe]...”. Clearly, if John wanted to use the term ‘ruler’ to apply to the Messiah, it would have been the already scripturally-established arkhon NOT arkhe! Arkhe was also scripturally-established as meaning “beginning” when applied to the pre-existent Messiah:

Prov. 8:22, 23 - “The Lord [Jehovah] made me the beginning [arkhe] of his ways for his works. He established me before the age, in the beginning, before he made the earth.” - Septuagint. (Many modern respected trinitarian scholars and translators admit the connection of Rev. 3:14 with Prov. 8:22. And virtually all the Christian writers of the first two centuries taught that the “Wisdom” of Prov. 8:22-30 was the pre-existent Christ!) It should not be too surprising, therefore, that the only use of “Ruler” to be applied to the Messiah in the entire NT is the already scripturally-established arkhon!

Conversely, the only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of “beginning” is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archamenoi (arxamenoi) found at John 8:9. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated “from of old”.])

Nowhere else does John use arkhe as “source,” “origin,” “beginner," etc. In the 23 times it is found in the writings of John (in the text used by the King James translators), it is always understood in the sense of “beginning” and is always so translated in the KJV. (And every time arkhe is found in the writings of John - 21 times in the text used by the NASB - it is also always translated “beginning” in that most-respected trinitarian Bible.) Here are all the uses of differing forms of arkhe by John according to Young’s Analytical Concordance: John 1:1; 1:2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7 (twice in KJV); 2:13; 2:14; 2:24 (twice); 3:8; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Rev.1:8 (KJV); 3:14; 21:6; and 22:13. Notice that the ASV, RSV, etc. also translate these as “beginning” or “first” (in time). The verses in blue are the only forms which are literally arkhe as found at Rev. 3:14.

John consistently used arkhe to mean only “beginning.” Since it is John’s writing we are concerned with at Rev. 3:14, this is of utmost importance.

The trinitarian theologian Albert Barnes says concerning the NT Greek word arkhe:

“The word properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist.... the word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence.” - Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, p. 1569.

We also see the highly respected BDAG admits the same for the use of arkhe (or arche) in Rev. 3:14.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are a lot of verses that tell us God knew who would be saved and so who would not be saved, yes, but you do not believe them, why not?
We are saved through the work of Jesus suffering and death. If Jesus had not come and died then God could not know those saved through the blood of Jesus. Jesus came to save and without Jesus who would be saved?
My idea of foreknowledge IS that God knew from before the foundation of the world, who would be saved and who would not.
As you say, God could have gotten rid of Adam and Eve and started again, but no, because He knew those who would be saved and loves us.
How could God know that there would be those who love Him without knowing the future?

Let's go back to Adam and Eve for a while. Does it say anywhere that He knew they would do what He told them not to do? As it is said in a song a while back, "Let's start at the very beginning...a very good place to start..."

 

[YoursTrue]

When I use "divine" I mean "of or from God".
There are other meanings which give other meanings however. I know the WT likes these other definitions and has even used them in such places as Col 2:9
Col 2:9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.
This lessens the impact of some verses and actually changes the meaning as in the above verse (Col 2:9) where the word they translate as "divine quality" actually means "absolute deity".
I think the word is found only once in the NT and is rare also in other old Greek manuscripts, but always means "absolute deity" when used.

Surely this is a very encouraging scripture. But again, it does not mean that Jesus was equal to God, or was God in the flesh equal to two other persons called God. So to make sure of this, here is why: (I quote several translations here --Colossian 1:19

Berean Study Bible
For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,

Berean Literal Bible
because all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him,

New American Standard Bible
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,

So, it was God (the Father) who approved of Jesus. And who taught Jesus, possibly before time was even counted. Thank you for bringing out that scripture, but it does not prove to me that Jesus was God incarnate, but yes, we must listen to Jesus as God's approved and appointed spokesman.

 

[Brian2]

or maybe supernatural being, non-physical entity, teem spirit ,school spirit, alcohol spirits or even holy spirit

The Greek Lexicon I gave gives the meaning of pneuma in the Bible. The WT has to deny the entire meaning of many words in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons. That means they have made themselves the language experts as well as the only ones who know what the Bible means and the only source of God's truth in this age. They are the (Matt 24:45)........ faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time. But unfortunately they have fed the household poisonous food many times over the years in the form of predictions that have not eventuated. Here is a sample, and they even ended up condemning themselves in the last (1968) quote from the Awake magazine. And if I remember right they even went on to predict other times,,,,,,,,,,,,1975 comes to mind. With all this in mind, personally I would not trust them to be right about any doctrines. But that's me and I know it is harder for a JW to admit to him/herself these things, esp when what needs to be done involves estrangement from friends and family. (they seem to be like Scientology and other cults in this regard)

• 1899 " . . . the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced," (The Time Is at Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).
• 1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection," (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89.)
• 1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914," (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262.)
• 1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).
• 1931 "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time . . . and they also learned to quit fixing dates," (Vindication, p. 338).
• 1941 "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon," (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1941, p. 288).
• 1968 "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world,' even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? . . . Missing from such people were God's truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them," (Awake, Oct. 8, 1968).

 

[Brian2]

Let's go back to Adam and Eve for a while. Does it say anywhere that He knew they would do what He told them not to do? As it is said in a song a while back, "Let's start at the very beginning...a very good place to start..."

No, does that mean He did not know?

 

[Brian2]

Surely this is a very encouraging scripture. But again, it does not mean that Jesus was equal to God, or was God in the flesh equal to two other persons called God. So to make sure of this, here is why: (I quote several translations here --Colossian 1:19

Berean Study Bible
For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,

Berean Literal Bible
because all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him,

New American Standard Bible
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,

So, it was God (the Father) who approved of Jesus. And who taught Jesus, possibly before time was even counted. Thank you for bringing out that scripture, but it does not prove to me that Jesus was God incarnate, but yes, we must listen to Jesus as God's approved and appointed spokesman.

The scripture I brought out was Col 2:9, not Col 1:19 which says nothing to contradict Col 2:9. In fact it agrees with it.
Col 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

 

[YoursTrue]

No, does that mean He did not know?

Let me ask you this: since God is omnipotent, do you think He can decide that He will not know what an outcome will be? (I think that is not just possible, but that He can do that.) Just to fathom that out, if He knew beforehand what they would do, causing all the misery and havoc in this world, that would make Him a pretty miserable god. I do not think He knew, otherwise he certainly would be a cruel god, and I don't think he is. So where's there an element of 'if' in the equation, God allows the question to unfold without Him knowing exactly the outcome. But He can control what He wants as He desires in the 'long run.' And there is a reason for everything He allows. That is because He is the Creator, the Most Intelligent Person and Force in the universe.