Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[YoursTrue]

I did have a more, shall we say, fundamentalist understanding of Genesis at one point then on the forums and talking with atheists my views have changed and I see that genesis can be understood with evolution in mind. It took time for that understanding to,,,,,,,,evolve. Atheist still don't seem to be able to see what I am talking about, but many of them have been brought up with a fundamentalist understanding of Genesis and reading translations that tend to hide things. (an idea that JWs are familiar with I'm sure)
I see that all the universe was created at Gen 1:1 and the sun and stars etc were not created on day 4 but were just made to appear then, instead of just light from them coming through the thick cloud cover that covered the ocean and kept the earth in darkness for much of day one. (see Job 38:9)
Science also has ideas of ocean and cloud cover in the first part of earth's history.
I see most of the order of creation and making (bringing about) of the life forms as agreeing with science and it's findings (even if microbes are not mentioned)
I see the formation of the atmosphere and weather systems and great geological upheavals to form the mountains and valleys as agreeing with science.
I see chapter 2 as beginning on maybe on day 2 or 3 of Gen 1. (I think I covered that in the last post)
These things and others do show that science has been showing that the Bible is correct, without realising it.
The Genesis account seems to have been written to fit ideas from the last few thousand years of scientific knowledge and it is still fitting science.
Of course I cannot deny that science could be wrong about 14 billion years etc but it seems right to me.
And of course I still say that man was a special creation of God on day 6 but that was when man was made in God's image by the breathing of spirit from God into the physical form.
Genesis is not big on details however, it gives just enough.
It does not need to explicitly describe evolution and it does not, but it also does not explicitly describe God poofing all life forms into existence. It even says, let the earth bring forth animals etc
I could be wrong in all of this but to me Genesis looks like a historical narrative as much as anything else.
Bye for now.

You know what I find interesting? Not to put you down, but you're going to tell me that Jesus is not a god, but then you say you don't really believe the Bible anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is something that is a forced stance of trinitarians due to the objection given against Jesus being God. Or iows we would say Jesus is God without hesitation but we know that those against that would say how could that be if Jesus does not know what the Father knows and is given all power by God and is subordinate to the Father etc. These things are explained by the fact that Jesus is the Son and the Father is His Father, so there is a father/son relationship. They are also explained by the fact that Jesus became a man.
Jesus is God by nature means that Jesus is as much God as His Father is.
I think you pretend to not know what it means. My son has the same human nature that I do. He is human. You know that but do not want to know what Jesus has the same nature as His Father.

Some say that "human nature" isn't that good. So what does human nature mean to you? Is your son exactly like you? Do you make mistakes? Does he make mistakes? If you have a daughter, would you say her "nature," although she is human, is exactly like your human nature? Is your son the same age as you? Has he had all the same experiences? Which reminds me -- did Jesus' father have the experience of becoming a human? So now is it that the son OF God, has a human nature as well as a god nature? What is human nature anyway? Like father like daughter? Or like father like mother? What's god nature?

 

[sojourner]

"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

This has been previously shown to not be the case. In fact, the lack of a definite article shows that both instances of theos in the passage indicate God Almighty.

 

[sojourner]

So, yeah....let’s go with their understanding of Scripture!

You’re confusing exegetics with ethics. The exegetical process is normally separate from belief-bias. IOW, the texts say what they say. One need not hold any particular belief in order to correctly exegete texts.

 

[Brian2]

Another is that He said, "Let us MAKE mankind in our image, in our likeness," and so forth. Not let us create. There's a difference. All to be considered.

I wonder if Gen 1:26 could mean "Let us make man into our image and likeness". Maybe meaning that the body of man which God had formed from the ground was going to made into the image of God.
Gen 1:27 goes on to say " So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."
So God created humans by breathing the spirit of life Adam on day 6 after forming the body through evolution over the past few days.
Then again it could also mean that God did the whole thing on day 6, forming man from the dust etc. but as we see in Gen 2 God seems to be saying that He formed man starting on day 2 possibly.

Unless, of course, you don't believe it. It is not reasonable to imagine that there were three godpersons without any of them having a beginning, and being equal. Jesus said he has a God. Perhaps you don't believe that either? Just wondering...

Jesus said He has a God and as a man of course He has a God. But as I have said more than once the Bible tells us when the Father became the God of Jesus, in His mother's womb. (Psalm 22:10)
Ps 22:10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

So yes -- bye for now, and have a good night. Oh, and by the way, since God is a Creator, what makes you think He did not create his son? Perhaps you think a human has a son alive within himself before he begets another "human" through his wife? As I said, it has been an interesting discussion, to say the least.

Jesus was not created, that is plain from many NT passages, and the one I have been going to many times is John 1:3
John 1:2 He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.…
This is a very plain scripture that tells us the Word was not made or brought into existence. But maybe you don't believe it.
The Word was not created and so was either born of God before time began (as one of the credos say) or was with and of course in God before time began. (and of course He was in God then because He was even in God while He was a man-----this is something the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming)
And no I don't think that humans have sons within them before they are begotten in a modern materialist way, but biblically and in the spirit of the father a son exists in our ancestors.
Heb 7 …9And so to speak, Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham. 10For when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the loin of his ancestor.

Yes, the spirit of God (OF GOD -- not God the spirit) is quite another subject, although interesting and fabulous in itself. We're still on whether Jesus has a "God." And is a God. And whether the Father is greater than he is. Of course, he said so, and I do believe Jesus on this. G'night.

The Father is greater because all that Jesus has comes from His Father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BUT the Father is not better. Jesus has the same nature as His Father, or the same substance if you like, the phrase the Arians did not like because they also disagreed on Jesus being the type of Son that the NT claims He is, just as also the Jews did not like the type of Son Jesus was saying He is even though they knew that the Messiah is said in the OT to be the Son of God, the heir.
And no Jesus did not claim to be a god and we know that there were no other gods formed and that were with the Father and never will be.
Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," says Yahweh, "With my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.
That is what this verse means isn't it? Jehovah is the only God and so if Jesus was a god He was the same God, Jehovah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and of course this is what we learn in many places in the NT where OT passages about Jehovah are applied to Jesus, and where Jesus is said to have received/inherited the name above all names. (and no it does not say all "other" names.)
The Father may have greater authority than the Son and the Son may have received all things from the Father BUT they are exactly alike, no difference apart from that Father/Son relationship.

 

[Brian2]

You know what I find interesting? Not to put you down, but you're going to tell me that Jesus is not a god, but then you say you don't really believe the Bible anyway.

We were having a discussion about the possible meanings of Genesis. Where have I shown you that I do not believe the Bible?
I even said it is possible that man was formed fully by God on the 6th day even though Gen 2 suggests otherwise.

 

[Brian2]

So now is it that the son OF God, has a human nature as well as a god nature?

I have shown you that Phil 2 tells us about the nature that Jesus had before becoming a man and that the grammar in that place tells us that He took that nature with Him when He took the nature of a servant and became a man.
Interestingly to take the nature of a servant shows that Jesus did not have the nature of a servant before taking that nature on Himself. iow the pre human Jesus was not an angel.
And in Phil 2 we see that "form" does mean nature because the word "form" is contrasted with "human likeness" and with "fashion as a man" (something hidden in the NWT btw) and so "form" means inner likeness or nature and "human likeness" and "fashion" means external likeness or appearance.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wonder if Gen 1:26 could mean "Let us make man into our image and likeness". Maybe meaning that the body of man which God had formed from the ground was going to made into the image of God.
Gen 1:27 goes on to say " So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."
So God created humans by breathing the spirit of life Adam on day 6 after forming the body through evolution over the past few days.
Then again it could also mean that God did the whole thing on day 6, forming man from the dust etc. but as we see in Gen 2 God seems to be saying that He formed man starting on day 2 possibly.

You could wonder a lot of things, but the Bible says God created man from the ground. Since you believe in evolution, anything you say about what the Bible means is really off balance, in my humble opinion. Plus the time line of man is approximately 6,000 years, give or take a few. So -- have a good evening. It's been interesting and at this point, we're not going to meet on too many subjectts.

Jesus said He has a God and as a man of course He has a God. But as I have said more than once the Bible tells us when the Father became the God of Jesus, in His mother's womb. (Psalm 22:10)
Ps 22:10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.



Jesus was not created, that is plain from many NT passages, and the one I have been going to many times is John 1:3
John 1:2 He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.…
This is a very plain scripture that tells us the Word was not made or brought into existence. But maybe you don't believe it.
The Word was not created and so was either born of God before time began (as one of the credos say) or was with and of course in God before time began. (and of course He was in God then because He was even in God while He was a man-----this is something the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming)
And no I don't think that humans have sons within them before they are begotten in a modern materialist way, but biblically and in the spirit of the father a son exists in our ancestors.
Heb 7 …9And so to speak, Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham. 10For when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the loin of his ancestor.



The Father is greater because all that Jesus has comes from His Father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BUT the Father is not better. Jesus has the same nature as His Father, or the same substance if you like, the phrase the Arians did not like because they also disagreed on Jesus being the type of Son that the NT claims He is, just as also the Jews did not like the type of Son Jesus was saying He is even though they knew that the Messiah is said in the OT to be the Son of God, the heir.
And no Jesus did not claim to be a god and we know that there were no other gods formed and that were with the Father and never will be.
Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," says Yahweh, "With my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.
That is what this verse means isn't it? Jehovah is the only God and so if Jesus was a god He was the same God, Jehovah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and of course this is what we learn in many places in the NT where OT passages about Jehovah are applied to Jesus, and where Jesus is said to have received/inherited the name above all names. (and no it does not say all "other" names.)
The Father may have greater authority than the Son and the Son may have received all things from the Father BUT they are exactly alike, no difference apart from that Father/Son relationship.

Etc and etc. Not to put you down, but anything you say about what you think the scriptures mean regarding Jesus as 'part' of a threesome of equal godpersons is off the chart. But thanks again.

 

[Brian2]

You could wonder a lot of things, but the Bible says God created man from the ground. Since you believe in evolution, anything you say about what the Bible means is really off balance, in my humble opinion. Plus the time line of man is approximately 6,000 years, give or take a few. So -- have a good evening. It's been interesting and at this point, we're not going to meet on too many subjectts.

We agree that God created man from the ground. I have Christian friends who are Young Earth Creationists and we are still Christian brothers and sisters and can agree on many things. It is not as big an issue as some people want to make out in that respect.
The Bible does not tell us how God formed man from the ground, evolution could have been the way for all we know. The creation was very good when man was created on the 6th day and all types of creatures and plants were there as God wanted them to become.
And yes the time line of man is 6000 years give or take and from memory the WT also must think that generations are missing from the genealogies.
We already know that there are subjects we're not going to meet on. We do agree that God did the creating however.

Etc and etc. Not to put you down, but anything you say about what you think the scriptures mean regarding Jesus as 'part' of a threesome of equal godpersons is off the chart. But thanks again.

This side and relatively unimportant discussion of Genesis seems like an interesting way to get out of a conversation. But that is OK it seemed more a one sided thing anyway because you never really answered what I wrote even though I tried to answer what you wrote and asked, and provided scriptures.
Bye for now.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We agree that God created man from the ground. I have Christian friends who are Young Earth Creationists and we are still Christian brothers and sisters and can agree on many things.

Hey @Brian2 , hope you are doing well.
God creating man from the earth, and YEC, are unrelated topics.
As Jehovah's Witnesses, we believe that A&E were direct creations (as did Jesus, Matthew 19:4-6), but we don't support a Young-Earth view.
Those creative Days were not literally 24 hours.
You remember on the 6th Day, when Adam was created? He had apparently waited some time for a mate. Why? Because read his response after Eve's creation...."This is at last bone of my bone...."
Nobody says that after only one day.
So the Earth itself could be very old, but humans are not, coming at the end of creation.

 

[Brian2]

Hey @Brian2 , hope you are doing well.
God creating man from the earth, and YEC, are unrelated topics.
As Jehovah's Witnesses, we believe that A&E were direct creations (as did Jesus, Matthew 19:4-6), but we don't support a Young-Earth view.
Those creative Days were not literally 24 hours.
You remember on the 6th Day, when Adam was created? He had apparently waited some time for a mate. Why? Because read his response after Eve's creation...."This is at last bone of my bone...."
Nobody says that after only one day.
So the Earth itself could be very old, but humans are not, coming at the end of creation.

I do think that a once off act of forming the body of Adam could have happened. However at a certain stage of evolution God could have taken a specimen and made some alterations and later made a mate for him from Adam's rib. I certainly am not saying that mankind evolved as a species of thousands, millions of specimens and God then gave each a soul. Adam and Eve were our first human parents, the first 2 humans.
Conversations about this topic can conjure up unintended pictures of what was meant to have been said.
It is sad that as JWs there are rules for what you can and cannot believe on such topics. I guess the same happens in some fundamentalist and YEC churches if not by rules, by culture and teachings.
If I was a JW would my ideas be acceptable do you think or is the enforcement of the one teaching pretty strict?

 

[Muffled]

Both, I think.

I believe you mean you see evidence of God's work with your eyes.

 

[Muffled]

So according to the trinity, when Jesus died, only his flesh died but the God within was still alive and went back to the other 2 persons in heaven? Oh except his flesh was put back on his "God nature"?

I believe I would not say that. I believe what the scripture is saying is that God left the physical state and returned to the purely spiritual state before returning to the physical state three days later. The Paraclete doesn't come into being for a few days after that.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe you mean you see evidence of God's work with your eyes.

No.
I 'see' evidence of God with any of my senses. Not God's work but God.

 

[Oeste]

This side and relatively unimportant discussion of Genesis seems like an interesting way to get out of a conversation. But that is OK it seemed more a one sided thing anyway because you never really answered what I wrote even though I tried to answer what you wrote and asked, and provided scriptures.

I thought you were very patient with him, @Brian2.

At this point I see the OP (and the countless other questions you and others have directed at JW's) as unanswerable, but I would like to thank them and everyone else for participating in this thread.

 

[TiggerII]

One last try. If you brush this one off again, it's over for any honest discussion.

You write in your OP (using a 50+ year-old writing as a "current truth"):

"Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is '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."

The WT writing you refer to does not say that Jesus DENIED being "God" or "a god"! It clearly says that he never CLAIMED to be God or a god.

If a man on the street does not claim to be an angel, for example, it obviously does not mean that he denied it!!!

 

[Oeste]

One last try. If you brush this one off again, it's over for any honest discussion.

Thank you for responding Tigger2. Honestly I just don’t see where I “brushed this one off” before. I specifically addressed the arguments you make below previously at #388 and #384.

Also, I think my fellow Christians have been extremely responsive to you and the JW’s on this thread.

You write in your OP (using a 50+ year-old writing as a "current truth")

I understand why some JW’s may view anything published by the Watchtower 50 years ago with suspicion (why this would be so is certainly worth another thread). However all published “truths” are “current truth” unless the WT says otherwise. This is especially true when the publication can be seen on jw.org.

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.

​

The WT writing you refer to does not say that Jesus DENIED being "God" or "a god"! It clearly says that he never CLAIMED to be God or a god.

Correct! If I tell you "I do not claim to be God or a god" then I have denied being a God or a god. If I claim to be a God or god, then I have asserted (claimed) to be one or the other.

If a man on the street does not claim to be an angel, for example, it obviously does not mean that he denied it!!!

Of course it does. If I ask you how long have you been an angel, and you tell me “I never claimed to be an angel” then you have denied being an angel!!!

This was discussed in your previous assertion Tigger2. I didn’t bypass it. To claim or disclaim does NOT mean to be quiet or mum about something. The transitive verb claim means to assert, and to not claim (disclaim) means to not assert. Both infer an action by the subject on the crowd.

But we need not quibble about this because the WT makes the whole matter totally unambiguous. Yes, it takes that extra step and states this (dis)claim is something Jesus told the crowd:

· 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)​

This makes the entire sentence clear and unambiguous @tigger2. The Watchtower goes beyond the actual statement and creates an imaginary conversation between Jesus and the stone wielding crowd; a false narrative where he tells them he is neither God or a god... a discussion we find nowhere in scripture.

This is bad enough, but the dilemma has not gone away. If we are to believe the WT, the apostle John tells us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 but Jesus himself tells the crowd he never claimed to be God or “a god” at John 10:33!

As such, the WT’s interpretation raises an intrinsic but unnecessary tension between Jesus and John, makes your job needlessly difficult and ultimately brings the entire book of John under unwarranted suspicion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe I would not say that. I believe what the scripture is saying is that God left the physical state and returned to the purely spiritual state before returning to the physical state three days later. The Paraclete doesn't come into being for a few days after that.

Let me ask you this...some say the flesh of God per Jesus was of that of a fallen nature. How do you feel about this?

 

[YoursTrue]

One last try. If you brush this one off again, it's over for any honest discussion.

You write in your OP (using a 50+ year-old writing as a "current truth"):

"Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is '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."

The WT writing you refer to does not say that Jesus DENIED being "God" or "a god"! It clearly says that he never CLAIMED to be God or a god.

If a man on the street does not claim to be an angel, for example, it obviously does not mean that he denied it!!!

Yes, it's almost like someone saying, "You are angel, I am angel..." Or..."You are angelic, I am an angel." Or..."You are an angel and I am angel..."

 

[TiggerII]

Oeste wrote:
"This makes the entire sentence clear and unambiguous @tigger2. The Watchtower goes beyond the actual statement and creates an imaginary conversation between Jesus and the stone wielding crowd; a false narrative where he tells them he is neither God or a god... a discussion we find nowhere in scripture.

"This is bad enough, but the dilemma has not gone away. If we are to believe the WT, the apostle John tells us Jesus is 'a god' at John 1:1 but Jesus himself tells the crowd he never claimed to be God or 'a god' at John 10:33!"
............................

Your improper use of "disclaim" (which simply means "deny") as being synonymous with "did not claim" is where I gave up before (where you "brushed off" my answer with a falsity).

Jesus never literally says (actual words spoken by him) that he is or is not 'a god.' Thus he never claimed to be "a god" (and he never claimed not to be "a god") The implied meaning of his words and his actions 'speak' for him (that, according to scripture itself, he could be called 'a god').

If this makes the 60-year old statement by a WT writer false, so be it. JW's understand that the "claim" was understood, not literally spoken.

BibleRef.com

"Jesus' response to the men trying to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:30–31) is somewhat complex, and easy to misunderstand. In that era, scribes and scholars would spend countless hours deliberating the meaning of the Scriptures. This often involved the same kind of rhetorical tactics used in politics or other forms of debate. Jesus is responding to the charge of blasphemy, from these men, using the same kind of argument they might employ.

"Specifically, Jesus has pointed to the Old Testament, which uses the same term for divinely-appointed human authorities as is also used for God Himself: elohim/Elohim. This is seen in Psalm 82, as well as portions of Exodus. Jesus is not suggesting that humans are gods in the sense of being divine. Rather, He is showing that when a person is commissioned by God, it's not unprecedented for God's own Word to use the term 'gods' in a poetic sense (John 10:34).

"Jesus then states that one cannot claim that God's Word is in error (John 10:35). If God uses the term 'little-g-gods' in reference to humans, then Jesus' statement about being unified with God isn't necessarily blasphemous. In order to instantly condemn Jesus, that's exactly what these men would have to do: they'd have to assume that any and all such statements are automatically sinful. Jesus is challenging them, in effect, as to whether they're willing to call a particular Scripture wrong in order to condemn Him.

"Jesus will continue, however, to explain that the real measure of His words are His actions. Rather than simply judging Jesus on the basis of words these men do not like, they ought to be considering His works, as well. In the case of Jesus, this includes miracles and other signs which clearly point to Him being divinely appointed (John 3:1–2; 10:19–21). If Jesus' actions did not support His words, then these men would be absolutely right to consider Him a blasphemer. But His works do, in fact, prove that what He claims is true (John 10:37–38)." - BibleRef.com (John 10:36 comment)

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

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us in a discussion of John 10:32-39 and Psalm 82:

"The reason why judges are called `gods' in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God's judgment as `sons of the Most High'. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... In trying to arrest him ([John] v. 39) and in disregarding the testimony of his works (vv.32, 38), they were judging unjustly like the judges in Ps. 82:2. .... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a `god' and `son of the Most High'." - Vol. 3, p. 187.