It just means that you have to put God's Word first. It doesn't mean you can't love them, but love them with God's Word.
Jehovah’s Witnesses
- Thread starter Samuel94
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
.
● John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God!
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society capitalize God in that verse when it
makes Thomas appear to be a polytheist?
REPLY: I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled JWs can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus the
attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just declare
that Jesus was a god. No, he clearly declared that Jesus was "my" god.
Here's what it looks like in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures ©1969
"the god of me"
Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham
way back in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God
voluntarily covenanted with Abraham's posterity to be their god.
Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted
that covenant voluntarily of their own free will; which is really important
because the covenant forbids them to have more than one god in
possession. No longer would Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their
only god.
● Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.
"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)
Now; if the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully
aware that possessing a second god along with Jehovah— in effect
possessing multiple gods --would incur the covenant's curse upon himself.
● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.
The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas
knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he slipped
and meant to say something else.
Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed
Jesus as his god, then John Que and Jane Doe rank and file JW need to ask
around and find out why it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god
but he isn't the Watchtower Society's god.
Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal
friends.
FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously
object when the apostle addressed him as such?
REPLY: That's a very intelligent question because Jesus said, in so many
words; it was not his intention to annul the old covenant. (Matt 5:17-19). In
other words: were Jesus not actually Thomas' god, then Jesus himself
would've fallen under the curse for accepting the apostle's statement without
protest.
● Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may
not bear sin along with him.
_
● John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God!
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society capitalize God in that verse when it
makes Thomas appear to be a polytheist?
REPLY: I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled JWs can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus the
attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just declare
that Jesus was a god. No, he clearly declared that Jesus was "my" god.
Here's what it looks like in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures ©1969
"the god of me"
Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham
way back in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God
voluntarily covenanted with Abraham's posterity to be their god.
Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted
that covenant voluntarily of their own free will; which is really important
because the covenant forbids them to have more than one god in
possession. No longer would Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their
only god.
● Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.
"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)
Now; if the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully
aware that possessing a second god along with Jehovah— in effect
possessing multiple gods --would incur the covenant's curse upon himself.
● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.
The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas
knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he slipped
and meant to say something else.
Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed
Jesus as his god, then John Que and Jane Doe rank and file JW need to ask
around and find out why it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god
but he isn't the Watchtower Society's god.
Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal
friends.
FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously
object when the apostle addressed him as such?
REPLY: That's a very intelligent question because Jesus said, in so many
words; it was not his intention to annul the old covenant. (Matt 5:17-19). In
other words: were Jesus not actually Thomas' god, then Jesus himself
would've fallen under the curse for accepting the apostle's statement without
protest.
● Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may
not bear sin along with him.
_
I noticed that word 'a' in that verse many years ago. Had a JW friend, loaned me a NWT to check it out. That was the first verse that I came to and then I just closed the book. I ended up buying this friend a NKJV bible for Christmas. Hope it did some good.They don't read the same Scriptures you do... they have their own version (NWT).
Example: John 1:1
This verse in the NWT 2013 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Our Bibles do not say that...
John 1:1 + 14a
There are Doctrinal differences in each denomination, including the JW church. I've talked with them and they are as stubborn as can be. The thing that upsets me about the JW's is their loyalty to the watch tower more then the bible.
They say the word is their standard of truth but the watch tower determines what the truth is and it also tells them not to read other material from other sources.
I was in town the other day and they had books on a table. I also had a book in my car so i took it over to them and said ill read any book if you read this one, as i handed the book to them.
They refused and wouldn't even look at the small book i had.
The w.t. society determines the truth and the church must follow it. The watch tower has been wrong and made mistakes yet they claim to be directed by God.
Once someone is loyal to the watch tower they are locked in and nothing will move them until they realize the watch tower is faulty.
They say the word is their standard of truth but the watch tower determines what the truth is and it also tells them not to read other material from other sources.
I was in town the other day and they had books on a table. I also had a book in my car so i took it over to them and said ill read any book if you read this one, as i handed the book to them.
They refused and wouldn't even look at the small book i had.
The w.t. society determines the truth and the church must follow it. The watch tower has been wrong and made mistakes yet they claim to be directed by God.
Once someone is loyal to the watch tower they are locked in and nothing will move them until they realize the watch tower is faulty.
It would be a mistake to consider them a Christian denomination, as their beliefs are not Christian.
a.) To think Jesus is a mere created being, who is actually Michael the archangel... is to have a false Jesus, and thus a false gospel.
b.) If we dream up some crazy idea, and simply call that crazy idea "Jesus", then we're putting our faith in something imaginary.
c.) Faith in something imaginary, which we've made up (a false Jesus and a false gospel) will not save us.
I don't believe there are any orthodox denominations that consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian.
.
There has been many christian denominations that have debated about the God head.
ARIAN beliefs are strong in some groups. "One God" becomes so strong they can't let Jesus be part of the God head. Understanding the nature of God is imposible and can lead to strange doctrines. But it is clear from the word that Jesus is God and we should worship Him as God.
I feel for the JWs because i know how convincing the Arian doctrines can be.
I say "since only He who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled humanity to the Godhead, Jesus must have been God or we are not fully reconciled.
.
● Luke 1:32 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
Before Jesus could be considered for David's throne, he first had to be
among David's biological descendants; no exceptions.
● Ps 89:35-36 . . Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto
David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.
● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn
from it: "Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"
The New Testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the biological requirement.
● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us
unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh
The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to
spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny; for example:
● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.
Abraham's seed obviously refers to spiritual progeny; whereas David's seed
refers to biological progeny because his is 1) the fruit of his body and 2) of
his loins according to the flesh.
Now the ramifications of this are of course unacceptable to most Christians;
to wit: seeing as how Jesus is biologically descended from David, then he
must be biologically descended from Abraham too, and if Abraham then
Noah, and if Noah then Adam, and if Adam then the very dust with which
Adam was created.
_
● Luke 1:32 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
Before Jesus could be considered for David's throne, he first had to be
among David's biological descendants; no exceptions.
● Ps 89:35-36 . . Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto
David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.
● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn
from it: "Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"
The New Testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the biological requirement.
● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us
unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh
The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to
spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny; for example:
● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.
Abraham's seed obviously refers to spiritual progeny; whereas David's seed
refers to biological progeny because his is 1) the fruit of his body and 2) of
his loins according to the flesh.
Now the ramifications of this are of course unacceptable to most Christians;
to wit: seeing as how Jesus is biologically descended from David, then he
must be biologically descended from Abraham too, and if Abraham then
Noah, and if Noah then Adam, and if Adam then the very dust with which
Adam was created.
_
I believe it is because a lack of cross referencing in the scriptures.
I know they are heretical ive had a debate or two with them in the past. They are always next to the shopping centre I go to. I am not a JW.
I just mentioned that yes, they do say "Jesus is Lord" and as @Nehemiah6 pointed out its another Jesus. Its the archangel michael Jesus.
I've understood it that way before. I didn't understand it that way through them.
But I now have a new understanding of the Trinity and who Jesus is.
I may not tell people that Jesus is God, I will tell people that Jesus is God's Word.No one can beat this argument at this point.
They don’t understand because you’re speaking the truth.
John 8:43-45
[43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. [45] But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
.
● Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn of all creation
The Greek word translated "firstborn" in that verse is prototokos, which
never means created first; no, it always means born first. The correct Greek
word for created first is protoktistos.
* John Que and Jane Doe JW probably don't know the difference between
prototokos and protoktistos; and no doubt would care little about it anyway.
To some; born first and created first are one and the same.
The thing to note is that "firstborn" doesn't always refer to birth order. The
term also refers to superiority, and as such is transferrable, viz: it's possible
to circumvent the eldest son and give his advantages to a younger, e.g.
Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and
Reuben to Joseph. (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1)
The rank of firstborn is versatile. For example the people of Israel are God's
firstborn nation (Ex 4:22) and David is God's firstborn king. (Ps 89:20-27)
In the beginning, Adam was the ranking man over all the Earth (Gen 1:26
28) but he has since been deposed by one who is the ranking man over not
only the Earth, but over the entire cosmos.
● Heb 1:1-2 . . God has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a
Son, whom He appointed heir of all things. (cf. Dan 7:13-14, John 3:35,
1Cor 15:27, and Phil 2:8-11)
_
● Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn of all creation
The Greek word translated "firstborn" in that verse is prototokos, which
never means created first; no, it always means born first. The correct Greek
word for created first is protoktistos.
* John Que and Jane Doe JW probably don't know the difference between
prototokos and protoktistos; and no doubt would care little about it anyway.
To some; born first and created first are one and the same.
The thing to note is that "firstborn" doesn't always refer to birth order. The
term also refers to superiority, and as such is transferrable, viz: it's possible
to circumvent the eldest son and give his advantages to a younger, e.g.
Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and
Reuben to Joseph. (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1)
The rank of firstborn is versatile. For example the people of Israel are God's
firstborn nation (Ex 4:22) and David is God's firstborn king. (Ps 89:20-27)
In the beginning, Adam was the ranking man over all the Earth (Gen 1:26
28) but he has since been deposed by one who is the ranking man over not
only the Earth, but over the entire cosmos.
● Heb 1:1-2 . . God has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a
Son, whom He appointed heir of all things. (cf. Dan 7:13-14, John 3:35,
1Cor 15:27, and Phil 2:8-11)
_
To clarify it, find a copy of the JW's bible, and read John 1:1.... IIRC, it doesn't say .... the Word was God, it says the Word was A God....This actually clears things up. Thanks a lot
HUGE difference.... they just added the letter A to the transcript.
well, shoot.... Mags beat me to it....
Denominations, Christianity, & The Gospel:
There is a difference between "debating about the Godhead" and having views which are incompatible with the gospel.
It sounds like you agree with this, but I want to add a few thoughts for clarity.
It would seem rational to think a person could believe that Jesus is God, but still have some heterodox views on the trinity.
Such a position (such as some types of modalism) might allow a person to believe in the gospel, but still debate the godhead.
(I'll add that Arianism seems beyond this category, and has been considered heresy for 1700 years.)
The gospel requires us to understand that GOD HIMSELF took on the form of a servant, and was born in the likeness of men.
If would seem that if we understand Jesus is God, and that he died and rose to pay for our sins, then we have enough rudimentary understanding to both comprehend and apprehend the gospel.
If we however deny Jesus is God, that would leave our beliefs outside of the gospel.
Conclusion:
- There are no orthodox denominations that fail to recognize Jesus is God.
- If a "Christian" denomination does not understand and preach the gospel... which includes the deity and eternality of Christ... then they are, by definition, not Christian.
.