Questions about JW’s

Webers.Home · Jul 10, 2020

.
Psalm 45:6 is usually translated like this:

"Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever."

The Watchtower Society translates it like this:

"God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever"

Chabad.org translates it like this:

"Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever"

Seeing as how the Hebrew word 'elohiym is a bit ambiguous, then either
"God" or "judge" will do-- at least in the Old Testament. But when we go
over to the New Testament, we quickly discover that "God" is the better
choice of words because the Greek word theόs usually always, with very few
exceptions, indicates a divine being rather than a judge or a magistrate
when it's modified by the little Greek article "ho".

Here's how the Watchtower Society translates Heb 1:8

"With reference to the Son: God is your throne forever and ever"

I lay no claim as a qualified linguist, nor even an armchair linguist; but I
really have to question from whence the Society came up with "God is your
throne".

A Watchtower Society missionary explained to me that "God is your throne"
is a metaphor indicating that the Son's throne is established with the power
of God rather than the power of men (John 18:36). In other words: "God is
your throne" is an interpretation rather than a translation.

JW REBUTTAL: The usual translations of Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8 has one God
speaking to another God. Does that make sense to you?

RESPONSE: That kind of reasoning has been a fatal flaw in the Society's
theology ever since the days of Charles Taze Russell and Joseph F.
Rutherford; viz: much of the Society's theology is based upon what makes
sense to it rather than what the Bible reveals to it.

JW REBUTTAL: If you read it as "God is your throne" then it's sensible and
consistent.

RESPONSE: Sensible to whom? The Watchtower Society and its minions?
Consistent with what? The Watchtower Society's theology? And besides,
"God is your throne" isn't even a valid translation, rather, it's an
interpretation, i.e. it says what the Society thinks Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8
ought to say rather than what those verses actually say.

I once asked a missionary how he knew for himself that the Society's
theology was reliable. He answered: "They go by the Bible and everything
they say makes sense." Well; a large percentage of traditional Christianity
goes by the Bible, and much of what it says makes sense too.

The missionary couldn't really be certain whether the Society is reliable: he
was courageously assuming the bosses know what they're talking about; but
no one should ever do that because of the Society's caveat located in the
Feb 2017 Watchtower-Study Edition; paragraph 12, under the heading;
"Who Is leading God's People today?" which reads like this:

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in
doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower
Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists
adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did
not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food."
_

Absolutely · Jul 10, 2020

JohnR7 said:

Both are true.
But your statement must include "conceived of the Holy Spirit ".

The point is "continuance"...He kept being the same person.

garee · Jul 10, 2020

I am talking about the meaning God gives. Not some plagiarist violating the law of interpretation Deuteronomy 4:2 that can change the meaning of "one" word.

Like the word gay meaning blessed. Today . . gay (a curse). If it feels good do it! Or marriage man and woman( mankind) to to represent God . to "if it feels good do it" ( any kind.. marry your dog if so desired ) who needs laws?

Where there is no law there is no trespass. Whose need faith ?

One word can redirect the outcome. Plagiarism is like those who violate the first commandment . And the other warning at end of the book of prophecy another warning is given not to add to the perfect (all the words) protecting the integrity of the whole book of the law, the Bible.

His word is law .Not one of the many philosophical new innovations of men who not not walk by the faith of Christ as it is written. It works in the believer .

Seek your established definitions?

I seem to have some evidence. Makes me wonder where is yours?

Did our father name her in Acts or as you suggestion its a badge of honor we can wear represented by those who mock the bride of Christ a derogative word and not a blessing ? All of the cities where named after the founder . It would seem you are saying the father of lies stole the thunder of the voice of many waters of the gospel ?

Christian, residents that dwell named after her founder, our husband Christ. A more befitting name to name the bride made up of all the nations of the world.

Corinthians, Galatians Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Nicolaitanes . Cities named after their founders .
Philadelphians name after the love for their city . Chicagoans name after Red Hots / with works to include sauerkraut .

Webers.Home · Jul 11, 2020

.
● 1Cor 15:36-42 . .What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and
as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare
grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body
just as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.

. . . Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is
another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

. . . And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the
heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.
The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and
the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory. So
also is the resurrection of the dead.

The Greek word for "dead" in that passage is nekros (nek-ros') which
basically refers to a corpse. In point of fact, verse 44 in this section of the
fifteenth chapter calls "the dead" a physical body.

According to the Watchtower Society: the resurrection of the dead, spoken
of in the fifteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, is not talking about re-energizing
a corpse in order to bring it back to life because according to their way
of thinking; if someone's corpse were returned to life, its owner would be
barred from the kingdom of God.

● 1Cor 15:50 . . .This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
God’s kingdom, (see post No.98)

But human remains are likened to seeds (1Cor 15:35-53) which would be
quite useless were they to be thrown away. On the contrary; the seeds have
to be kept on hand so they can undergo a transformation suitable for the
kingdom together with the bodies of those who are alive at the time of the
Lord's return. (1Thess 4:13-18)

FAQ: What about the remains of people whose bodies are no longer intact
such as those eaten and digested by critters, burned to ashes, and/or blown
to smithereens in war?

A: It was God's intentions from the very beginning that human bodies return
to the dust from whence they're made. (Gen 3:19).

FAQ: What if some of the atoms that made my body go into making another
person's body after I'm dead? How will God fully restore both our bodies to
life seeing as how He will have need of the atoms of each to do so?

A: Specific atoms are all the same; it's not as if there are no two alike; viz:
if God needs some carbon atoms to reconstruct your body, He could utilize
carbon atoms from a Sequoia cactus or a Lyme tick and they would work
just fine without the slightest need for adjustment because every carbon
atom is a precise duplicate of every other carbon atom; viz: all carbon atoms
are alike.

So it isn't necessary for God to locate all your original carbon atoms in order
to reconstruct your original body; He just needs carbon atoms; and they are
very plentiful in nature: same with iron, calcium, phosphorus, sodium,
hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 12, 2020

.
● 1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a
commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and
those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

I'm going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a
point.

"with the archangel's voice"

No, it doesn't say "the" archangel's voice, rather, it says "an" archangel's
Voice-- viz: a nondescript arch angel --so I think it would be a mistake to
assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to a specific arch angel when
according to Dan 10:13, there's more than one. Identifying the arch angel in
1Thess 4:16-17 as the angel spoken of in Jude 1:9 would be an arbitrary
designation.

The title "Son of Man" in Matt 24:30-31 alerts us to the fact that the Lord
himself, spoken of in 1Thess 4:16-17, will be the progeny of a human being
rather than the progeny of an angel being; primarily because the Greek
word translated "Man" is anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) which is a common
word for humans throughout the New Testament rather than angels and/or
humanistic avatars.

NOTE: The expression "in union with Christ" refers to an elite class of
Christians identified in 1John 2:26-27 as anointed. See also post No.368
_

JohnR7 · Jul 12, 2020

Absolutely said:

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness." (Philippians 2:6)

Webers.Home · Jul 13, 2020

.
● John 1:14 . . So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we
had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son
from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

The Greek word from which "undeserved kindness" is derived is charitos;
which itself is derived from charis (khar'-ece)

"undeserved kindness" isn't a translation of charis/charitos; rather, it's the
Watchtower Society's own opinion of what they think those words ought to
mean. The literal meaning is graciousness.

John Q and Jane Doe Witness are being deprived of viewing some very
pleasant aspects of the only-begotten son's personality by interpreting charis
to mean undeserved kindness because graciousness says some wonderful
things about not only the flesh that the Word became; but also about the
Father from whom the Word came.

Webster's defines "graciousness" as; kind, courteous, inclined to good will,
generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial,
affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness

Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to
conversation or requests or proposals

Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality

Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others

Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous,
kindly, and liberal in giving

Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz:
benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.

Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others;
viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels
good to do so.

Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain
good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary
conflict.

Here's a couple of passages from the NWT where the Society's translation
committee had the academic decency to let charis/charito speak for
themselves instead of butting in to tell people what they think those words
ought to mean.

"Keep on teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, praises to
God, spiritual songs with graciousness" (Col 3:16)

"Let your utterance be always with graciousness." (Col 4:6)

NOTE: The claim that the only begotten son is somehow undeserving of
kindness is of course 110% false. Worthiness is in every fiber of Christ's
being. (Dan 7:13-14, Phil 2:8-11, Rev 5:1-14, Rev 19:11)
_

NWL · Jul 14, 2020

bluto said:

Once again! You say "Now I will answer you NWL", but nowhere do you actually answer my question but rather skip around my question by answering a rhetorical question, namely "why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world?", this is simply a smokescreen. Rather than asking me why I've asked such a question just answer my question instead, I don't get how you can beat your chest claiming you've defeated JW's for 58 years yet can't seem to answer a simple question. Here is it again, is the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 100% literal when it uses the words or not, does the 'all things' and "everything", literally mean all things and everything? STOP BEATING AROUND THE BUSH!

You say Jesus is not the first murderer but the verse, Col 1:18, says that Jesus is "the one who is first in all things", so by your comment that Jesus is "not the first person to be a murderer" do you agree with me that the "all things" in Col 1:18 does not literally mean all things despite the language suggesting he is 'first in all things'?

Again, this is an extremely easy question to answer, you not doing so only shows you know where I'm going by my argument and know you are clearly wrong, hence why you repeatedly refuse to answer my question.

Yes you showed me where Thayer referenced 'arche' as meaning "origin", but I asked you to show me where you, or anyone else ever shows that 'arche' means 'origin' by any other scripture other than Rev 3:14. Remember, I'm the one saying that 'arche' never means 'originator' in biblical or extra-biblcal langauge, the only place people ever try and show that it does it with Rev 3:14, but when asked how they have come to this understanding in Rev 3:14 they are unable to evidence why 'arche' means originator by any other text or document. Ultimately, the argument is circular, and goes like this, "the Greek word 'arche' in Rev 3:14 has a sense of 'originator', the evidence for this is the word arche in Rev 3:14". This, in effect, is what you're claiming. Again, show me where any document, biblical or extra-biblical, uses the word 'arche' with the understanding of 'originator', which isn't Rev 3:14?

If you simply answered my questions which would enable me to further develop my points you will see that it does. It's so foolish of you to keep making the same claim over and over again, and yet fail to properly answer my simple questions above, if you answer my questions I will be able to demonstrate the difficulty you have rationalizing JW theology with John 1:3.

Here are a few other questions that you have also failed to answer, none of them require much thought or writing in answer, so am confused why you do not answer them:

Does God YHWH have the ability to choose to not know something, or, does he lack the ability to be able to choose to not know something?

When I asked "In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father?" where have you given an answer to what person of the trinity is being spoken of when it mentions 'God' in v1? if you have answered this, simply direct me to the post where you did. [/QUOTE]

NWL · Jul 14, 2020

tourist said:

I have hardly put my own spin on the bible, in fact, it was you that suggested Jesus had to be God to be able to die for mankind sins, this idea is your own spin on the bible, since nowhere is this idea ever expressed in the bible and the point I was trying to make, you said "If Jesus is not God but rather just a created being than He could not have possibly died for your sins as He would have no authority to do so". Agian, please show me from the bible where such an idea is expressed, you will find this is simply your own spin on the bible.

The OT is clear in relation to corresponding recompense, "the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." (Exo 21:24,25), it is through Adam all men die and through the man Jesus that these sins are blotted out, the ransom required nothing more than a corresponding sacrifice as to what was lost, namely, a perfect sinless human life (Adam), this idea that the sacrifice 'had to understand the human condition' is nowhere found in the bible and another spin you have on what the bible says, please show me where such a thought is expressed. As I mentioned before, there is nothing in the bible that doesn't allow a perfect human spirit person to take on a human form and ransom themselves for mankind.

It's ironic that you say the above for two reasons, one, modern shcolarship denies the tradictional understanding of John 1:1c and rathers states John 1:1c is qualitative and NOT defintie in its rendering, what the NWT has been saying for many decades now, they simply won't translate it that way as they know the backlash it will have by the ignorant, and two, there are many bibles translations that render John 1:1c as 'a god'. The eividence is below:

Bible translations
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland (trinitarian)
“and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864 (trinitarian)
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975 (trinitarian)
"and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979. (trinitarian)
“and the word was a god” - The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808 by W. Newcome
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in an improved version, 1808, Thomas Belsham

Scholars comments
"In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation [why they have rendered John 1:1c as the Word was "a god"] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn
"a god was the Word" - W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 490 (grammar alone)
"If translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [John 1:1c] would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted" - C. H. Dodd, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 1977
"and a God was the Word (i.e. a Divine being)" - Robert Young, Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary

Modern trinitarian scholars comment understanding of John 1:1c
“If, then, a single reason is to be given for the Anarthrous state of Θεὸς [theos in John 1:1c], it is that this noun is qualitative, this Anarthrous Θεὸς [theos] also confirms that the articular Λόγος [Logos] is the subject of the clause and excludes the inference that the Word exhausts the category of Deity or that the Son was the Father.” – Murray J. Harris (trinitarian), Jesus as God, 2008, p. 67

“The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and imply some sort of modalistic view of God which of course Trinitarians oppose.” “the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father- would be modalistics.” “Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error…. As surprising as it may seem, arguing that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son. - Rob Bowman (trinitarian), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.

“[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J (trinitarian)., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69

I don't usually like quoting people in mass as I have above, but in such circumstances, it had to be done. John 1:1 is NOT definite in it's rendering, the translation "and the word was God" is a definite translation, qualitative, translations can either written as "and the word was divine", "the word was a god", the word was godlike", as all these translations reflect qualitative readings, the translation "the word was God" does NOT, as it is a definite translation of the text. This is why the scholar James White (trinitarian) in his debate with Greg Stafford (JW), that can be seen on youtube, refused to state why understood John 1:1c as qualitative, as Greg Stafford would have questioned why he translated John 1:1c with a definite and NOT a qualitative rendering in his bible.

If you understand John 1:1c as "the word was God", and understand Jesus to be God himself by the verse, then you deny all modern scholarship on the matter who say the verse cannot be understood in such a manner without it contradicting the trinity doctrine.

NWL · Jul 14, 2020

WithinReason said:

Because all that which is created is subject to God and beneath God's law.

Pro_22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

Act_17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Their (all created beings) life is not their own.

The divine Son (aka 'Jesus') of God [that is to say, the Father, aka 'Ancient of Days'] was the only sacrifice of sufficient value to fully satisfy the claims of God's perfect law. The angels were sinless, but of less value than the law of God. They were amenable to law. They were messengers to do the will of Christ, and before him to bow. They were created beings, and probationers. Upon Christ no requirements were laid. He had power to lay down his life, and to take it again. No obligation was laid upon him to undertake the work of atonement. It was a voluntary sacrifice that he made. His life was of sufficient value to rescue man from his fallen condition.

Not one of the angels could have become surety for the human race: their life is God's; they could not surrender it. The angels all wear the yoke of obedience. They are the appointed messengers of Him who is the commander of all heaven. But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come; and when God asked, "Whom shall I send?" he could reply, "Here am I; send me." He could pledge himself to become man's surety; for he could say that which the highest angel could not say,--I have power over my own life, "power to lay it down, and . . . power to take it again."

Notice of the Son (by typology) it is written:

Num_19:2 This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:

The Son's place was eternally (John 1:1-3; 1 John 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:8-12) by the side of the Father, upon the throne of Deity and "equal with" the Father (Philippians 2:6) in the very "form of God" (Philippians 2:6), with eternal glory (John 17:5) before taking upon Himself the "form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7).

A created angelic (perfect) being cannot take on human form and die for anyone. The entire WTS theology is bankrupt at this point.

Where does it express a spirit creature cannot take on a human form and die for mankind, I think you'll find you've assumed this. You said a lot in your post to me, but hardly backed up anything you said with scripture. The spirit angels are beneath God, show me from the scriptures where it expresses a spirit person could not die for mankind because of this?

Why did it have to be God who died for us?

garee · Jul 14, 2020

NWL said:

God who has no beginning of days or end of spirit life cannot die never to rise again .God is not a man.

What has to be defined is died according to the scriptures. What kind of death last three days ?

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

NWL · Jul 14, 2020

Absolutely said:

Lol. This is where the traditional teaching of the trinity falls apart. If I were to ask you, "how is it possible that Jesus as God died", you would no doubt say Jesus has two natures, one divine (God), and one human nature, and that it was Jesus humanity that died and not his deity nature, since this is the orthodox Christian understanding on the matter. Yet, on the other hand, you say suugest God did in fact die on the cross when you say "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross".

Which is Absolutely, did God die on the cross, or did only Jesus humanity die on the cross? If your answer is that God died on the cross then you admit God is NOT eternal, which means he can't be God since an eternal God cannot die, if only his humanity died then you contradict what you yourself said by your words "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross" since you'll be admitting God didn't die on the cross. So which is it, did Jesus humanity die or what it Jesus as deity that died?

You're out of your depth.

NWL · Jul 14, 2020

garee said:

Hi garee, I would engage with you but I find your writing style hard to decipher, if you could normalize your points and questions I'd be happy to reply to your points.

garee · Jul 14, 2020

NWL said:

Sorry .

Thanks I am not saying I disagree with John 1 . The word was of God spoken to by His prophet, apostle Jesus . Jesus did not do the will of the flesh . When he spoke every word came from the father . The Son of man has no power to rebuke .

Not sure how I could normalize what I first offered ? Death must defined according to the scriptures. It the key point .

tourist · Jul 14, 2020

NWL said:

I have hardly put my own spin on the bible, in fact, it was you that suggested Jesus had to be God to be able to die for mankind sins, this idea is your own spin on the bible, since nowhere is this idea ever expressed in the bible and the point I was trying to make, you said "If Jesus is not God but rather just a created being than He could not have possibly died for your sins as He would have no authority to do so". Agian, please show me from the bible where such an idea is expressed, you will find this is simply your own spin on the bible.

The OT is clear in relation to corresponding recompense, "the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." (Exo 21:24,25), it is through Adam all men die and through the man Jesus that these sins are blotted out, the ransom required nothing more than a corresponding sacrifice as to what was lost, namely, a perfect sinless human life (Adam), this idea that the sacrifice 'had to understand the human condition' is nowhere found in the bible and another spin you have on what the bible says, please show me where such a thought is expressed. As I mentioned before, there is nothing in the bible that doesn't allow a perfect human spirit person to take on a human form and ransom themselves for mankind.

It's ironic that you say the above for two reasons, one, modern shcolarship denies the tradictional understanding of John 1:1c and rathers states John 1:1c is qualitative and NOT defintie in its rendering, what the NWT has been saying for many decades now, they simply won't translate it that way as they know the backlash it will have by the ignorant, and two, there are many bibles translations that render John 1:1c as 'a god'. The eividence is below:

Bible translations
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland (trinitarian)
“and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864 (trinitarian)
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975 (trinitarian)
"and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979. (trinitarian)
“and the word was a god” - The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808 by W. Newcome
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in an improved version, 1808, Thomas Belsham

Scholars comments
"In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation [why they have rendered John 1:1c as the Word was "a god"] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn
"a god was the Word" - W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 490 (grammar alone)
"If translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [John 1:1c] would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted" - C. H. Dodd, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 1977
"and a God was the Word (i.e. a Divine being)" - Robert Young, Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary

Modern trinitarian scholars comment understanding of John 1:1c
“If, then, a single reason is to be given for the Anarthrous state of Θεὸς [theos in John 1:1c], it is that this noun is qualitative, this Anarthrous Θεὸς [theos] also confirms that the articular Λόγος [Logos] is the subject of the clause and excludes the inference that the Word exhausts the category of Deity or that the Son was the Father.” – Murray J. Harris (trinitarian), Jesus as God, 2008, p. 67

“The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and imply some sort of modalistic view of God which of course Trinitarians oppose.” “the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father- would be modalistics.” “Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error…. As surprising as it may seem, arguing that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son. - Rob Bowman (trinitarian), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.

“[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J (trinitarian)., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69

I don't usually like quoting people in mass as I have above, but in such circumstances, it had to be done. John 1:1 is NOT definite in it's rendering, the translation "and the word was God" is a definite translation, qualitative, translations can either written as "and the word was divine", "the word was a god", the word was godlike", as all these translations reflect qualitative readings, the translation "the word was God" does NOT, as it is a definite translation of the text. This is why the scholar James White (trinitarian) in his debate with Greg Stafford (JW), that can be seen on youtube, refused to state why understood John 1:1c as qualitative, as Greg Stafford would have questioned why he translated John 1:1c with a definite and NOT a qualitative rendering in his bible.

If you understand John 1:1c as "the word was God", and understand Jesus to be God himself by the verse, then you deny all modern scholarship on the matter who say the verse cannot be understood in such a manner without it contradicting the trinity doctrine.

I really don't care about modern scholarship at all. There are three separate entities, Father, Son, Holy Spirit comprising one God. The Son, who is Jesus died for our sins. The bible is clear on this despite what modern scholars believe. Jesus is God and created the entire universe under the authority granted to Him by the Father. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins and comforts and guides us in the life-long repentance process. During this process salvation has already been attained by contritely confessing our sinful life style to Jesus and asking for forgiveness. The shed blood of Jesus dying on the cross wipes our sins away. This is what I believe and have faith in. Pagans pray to 'a God'. Christians pray to 'the God'. There is only one.

Webers.Home · Jul 14, 2020

.
● Ecc 12:7 . . .The dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be, and
the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it.

Solomon's comment strongly suggests that human existence isn't entirely
organic. In point of fact, information comes out very early in the Bible that
there's a non-organic element to human existence called the breath of life.

● Gen 2:7 . . Jehovah God formed a man's body from the dust of the
ground, and breathed into it the breath of life; and the man came to be a
living soul.

The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among
other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire)
burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4)
to animate.

Naphach is sort of like what Indy Car drivers do when they're given the
order to start their engines-- they light 'em up, so to speak: for example:

"What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was
the light of men." (John 1:3-4) viz: the Word's life kindled all other forms of
life, including human life.

The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff.
Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul,
spirit, blast, and inspiration.

What we're looking at here is a kind of artificial respiration, but not the
regular kind because it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of
a corpse. They won't come alive like that; it's been tried.

However, there's evidence in the Bible, starting in Genesis, indicating that
it's possible to pump life into a corpse: in point of fact into anything, even
stones (Matt 3:9, Luke 19:40).

Creatures within whom is the breath of life are perishable (e.g. Gen 7:21
22) but I have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible clearly stating that
the breath of life itself is perishable. In point of fact, I think it is very easy to
prove that the human creature's breath of life is not only a permanent
feature of their existence; but also prevents them from going out of
existence.

For example: when Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31
passed away, they all left the organic portion of their existence behind-- viz:
their bodies: their limbs, their innards, their eyes and ears, and their brains
--yet on the other side they are perceptive; fully conscious, and fully
sentient.

I don't know for sure in what form they exist on the other side, but one
thing I do know is that they have not ceased to exist as individuals, nor have
they lost their identities-- Abraham is still Abraham, Lazarus is still Lazarus,
and the rich man is still the rich man; and that has to be because they
retained their breath of life when they crossed over to the other side.

For example; in Watchtower theology, Michael the arch angel had to die in
order to become a human being. Now, the amazing part of the story is that
Michael didn't go completely out of existence when he died; his life force
carried on.

"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His
life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum
of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watchtower magazine, 2/15/1982, page 7)

So, if it's possible for God to transfer the life force of a deceased spirit being
into a human body in order to preserve the spirit being's continuity of life,
then I see no reason to question whether God can do the very same thing in
reverse; viz: transfer the life force of a deceased human being into a spirit
body; thus preserving the human being's continuity of life.

● Heb 12:22-23 . . But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the
living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, in general assembly,
and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the
heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones
who have been made perfect,

"spiritual lives" isn't a translation, rather, it's an interpretation of the Greek
word pneúmasi which actually means spirits; and is so translated in
something like thirty-two verses in regular Bibles.

NOTE: The Watchtower Society isn't consistent with its interpretation of
pneúmasi. For example at Rev 16:13-14 they say it means inspired
expressions instead of spiritual lives, and at 1Pet 3:19 they say it means
spirits; i.e. sentient non-organic beings.
_

WithinReason · Jul 14, 2020

NWL said:

Re-read what was given. Do you admit that the scriptures teach that the created angelic hosts, are Created by God, and that their life is borrowed from God? They are in debt to God for this? How can a person who is in Debt, pay a Ransom, when everything they have, including their life is owed already to God? With what will they purchase with?

garee · Jul 14, 2020

Yes and they both return to there source as one judgment "death" dead never to rise to new Life.

The believers is given a new spirit and heart it could never die. It will be raised up and clothed in its new incorruptible body on the last day .

Jimbone · Jul 14, 2020

Ahwatukee said:

Greetings NOV25!

We can nip this in bud before it gets going. That said, Adam's state is irrelevant in regards to whether or not JW are of Christ, which is the real issue.
--
JW's believe that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, which would make Jesus a created being and would make any other Biblical topic a moot point. That in itself disqualifies them as being true believers right out of the gate. Paul said that there are Christ's many and gospels many and the JW's are believing in one of those other Christ's and other gospels.

They claim that He is not God and even reinterpreted John 1:1 to say "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was [a] god." They added the "a god" in support of their belief that Jesus is not God. However, that is only one scripture that reveals that Jesus is God. There are many, many, many more scriptures that proclaim Jesus as being God. We could start with Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel."

Immanuel means, 'With us is God,' i.e. Jesus is God in the flesh.

Regarding this I John 4:2 says "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." The meaning of "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" is that He existed with God and as God before He became a human being.

After Jesus' resurrection, He appeared the first time to His disciples and Thomas was not there. And when the disciples told him that they had seen the Lord, he did not believe them. The following week Jesus appeared to them again and this time Thomas was there and said to Him, "Thomas, look at my hands and my feet. Puts your hand in my side. Stop doubting and believe!" And Thomas said, "My Lord and My God." Jesus said, "Thomas, you believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen. Here we have Thomas calling Jesus God. Now if Jesus was not God, then the Lord would have rebuked him for saying so.

We also have God the Father calling Jesus God:

But about the Son He (God the Father) says:

“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever, and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;

therefore God, Your God, has anointed You above Your companions with the oil of joy.”

We also have the Jews recognizing that Jesus was calling himself God by His claim to them:

My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him. But Jesus responded, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?”

“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

The Jews understood that by Jesus saying that "I and the Father are one" that He was proclaiming to be God. Here is another example:

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone. It instructs us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and godly lives in the present age, as we await the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

My point in all this is that, you don't have to bother going around and around with the JW regarding any other Biblical topics, because they're exposed as a false right out of the gate by believing that Jesus is a created being. You don't need to go any further than that. Jesus as God is exactly the issue that should be brought up when they come to our doors, otherwise you will get caught up in a bunch of other scriptural topics, as well as the removal of the word Jehovah. Everything else after that is a moot point. Consider the following:

"When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. But He placed His right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever! (Rev.1:17-18)

"These are the words of the First and the Last, who died and returned to life."

"“Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

The Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, are characteristics that both the Father and Son share.

If you ask a JW who the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last is, they will tell you it is God the Father alone as Jehovah. Then all you have to do is simply read them Rev.1:17-18 which identifies Jesus as being the First and the Last as the One who died and came back to life.

Wow you wrote a lot, and all I wanted to address was in the first part.
You mixed up the Mormon teaching here. Mormons are the ones that believe Jesus is Lucifer spirit brother. JW's think that the Archangel Micheal in a moment ceased to be Micheal and became Jesus on earth, after the cross and the ascension Jesus stopped being at all and Micheal popped back into existence and it's him on the throne. I I've gotten them mixed up too, just thought I'd point it out.

Absolutely · Jul 14, 2020

NWL said:

Lol. This is where the traditional teaching of the trinity falls apart. If I were to ask you, "how is it possible that Jesus as God died", you would no doubt say Jesus has two natures, one divine (God), and one human nature, and that it was Jesus humanity that died and not his deity nature, since this is the orthodox Christian understanding on the matter. Yet, on the other hand, you say suugest God did in fact die on the cross when you say "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross".

Which is Absolutely, did God die on the cross, or did only Jesus humanity die on the cross? If your answer is that God died on the cross then you admit God is NOT eternal, which means he can't be God since an eternal God cannot die, if only his humanity died then you contradict what you yourself said by your words "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross" since you'll be admitting God didn't die on the cross. So which is it, did Jesus humanity die or what it Jesus as deity that died?

You're out of your depth.

You are.

We are all eternal beings.

That dynamic is beyond you.

Nobody totally dies.
They go on to the next life as in Lazarus/ the rich man.

Your limitations are self administered in your watchtower workbook

Questions about JW’s

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Well-known member

Active member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned