First God Created Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeanneH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JeanneH

Guest
Hi,
How can I answer a JW who says that first God created Jesus then through Jesus all other things. The NWT adds other to Colossians 1:15 and following.? They believe that Jesus while in heaven is Michael. When Jesus was born of Mary he is called Jesus. Now that he is back in heaven is he Jesus or Michael? Very confusing.

Thanks Jeanne
 
This sounds very much like the Arian heresy, and it also mirrors some of the false Gnostic Christologies. I have been told that the JWs have intentionally translated their bibles to give the impression that Jesus was somehow a created being. In my experience, the best answer is that this is not the Christ who reveals himself to us. In the Incarnation, we see God undergoing the ultimate humiliation imaginable on our behalf. We see God who, in his infinite love, lives a life we could not and dies a death we could not - and all on our behalf. He did this because even when we are faithless, he remains faithful and cannot deny himself. He promised to achieve redemption from the Fall, and only he - God - could keep that promise. If an angel or other creature could have done so, our bibles would read quite differently. The Arian heresy diminishes the love and grace and power of God when it makes Christ some sort of a demigod or angel, and it glorifies a created being while making God a weakling who needed somebody else to keep his end of the covenants. We should also consider Malachi 3, which clearly states that the Lord will suddenly come to his temple. Doesn’t sound like an angel to me! 👍
 
The early Church said, - Jesus was begotten, not created. He is eternally begotten of the Father. He is also God… He was never St Michael…I’m not sure where that idea is from, even. St Michael is an angel who God created…Jesus is God.

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
 
JWs! I once “studied” with them many years ago. Theirs is the most convoluted “theology” I’ve ever known. If they can’t explain something away that is not true they just say that it is a sin to question the WTBS and ignore the question.
Read their “translation” of St. John 1:1 - In the beginning the Word was and the Word was with God and the word was a god. They toss in the letter “a” and boom - change the entire sentence, not to mention diminish Christ to a creation in the bargin.
Those people appeal only to a portion of drastically undereducated and underread people who do not want to be bothered researching for TRUTH. They are a cult that throws you out of their congregation if you dare to disagree with them or have any opinion of your own that is not in concert with the WBTS.
If a JW came to the knowledge and revelation of who Christ really is, he/she would have no more JW friends or family. He/she is completly shunned.
 
Hi,
How can I answer a JW who says that first God created Jesus then through Jesus all other things. The NWT adds other to Colossians 1:15 and following.? They believe that Jesus while in heaven is Michael. When Jesus was born of Mary he is called Jesus. Now that he is back in heaven is he Jesus or Michael? Very confusing.

Thanks Jeanne
Jesus is begotten, not made

to explain what beggotten is, think about the sun. as long as there is a sun, there’s sunlight. sunlight comes from the sun, but did the sun come first? as soon as the sun is there, there’s sunlight, they always exist at the same time. same with Jesus. He is begotten of the Father. since the Father is eternal, so is Jesus
 
no where in the Bible does it mention Christ being created. it does mention Christ being with God the Father and Himself fully God from the begining, but no where does the Biblical narrative describe or imply the creation of Christ.

being begotten into history as a Man is not the same as being created (John 8:58, John 17:5).
 
This sounds very much like the Arian heresy, and it also mirrors some of the false Gnostic Christologies. I have been told that the JWs have intentionally translated their bibles to give the impression that Jesus was somehow a created being. In my experience, the best answer is that this is not the Christ who reveals himself to us. In the Incarnation, we see God undergoing the ultimate humiliation imaginable on our behalf. We see God who, in his infinite love, lives a life we could not and dies a death we could not - and all on our behalf. He did this because even when we are faithless, he remains faithful and cannot deny himself. He promised to achieve redemption from the Fall, and only he - God - could keep that promise. If an angel or other creature could have done so, our bibles would read quite differently. The Arian heresy diminishes the love and grace and power of God when it makes Christ some sort of a demigod or angel, and it glorifies a created being while making God a weakling who needed somebody else to keep his end of the covenants. We should also consider Malachi 3, which clearly states that the Lord will suddenly come to his temple. Doesn’t sound like an angel to me! 👍
Thanks I like where you said that “it glorifies a created being while making God a weakling who needed somebody else to keep his end of the covenants” I have tried to explain to her that ONLY God can forgive sins and ONLY God’s blood can redeem us but it falls on deaf ears.
I wonder why God opens some eyes and not others?.
God Bless
Jeanne
 
Jesus is begotten, not made

to explain what beggotten is, think about the sun. as long as there is a sun, there’s sunlight. sunlight comes from the sun, but did the sun come first? as soon as the sun is there, there’s sunlight, they always exist at the same time. same with Jesus. He is begotten of the Father. since the Father is eternal, so is Jesus
Hummm I find this to be a pretty good explanation. But once again it will fall on deaf ears.

Jeanne
 
The early Church said, - Jesus was begotten, not created. He is eternally begotten of the Father. He is also God… He was never St Michael…I’m not sure where that idea is from, even. St Michael is an angel who God created…Jesus is God.

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
She believes that Catholicism is a false religion as well as every other religion except the REAL false religion which is hers.
She wouldn’t pay any attention to the Creed. She also pays no mind to the Church Fathers. She is truly brain washed and she is an educated chiropractor. So educated people do get caught up in the WT net.

thanks
Jeanne
 
She believes that Catholicism is a false religion as well as every other religion except the REAL false religion which is hers.
She wouldn’t pay any attention to the Creed. She also pays no mind to the Church Fathers. She is truly brain washed and she is an educated chiropractor. So educated people do get caught up in the WT net.

thanks
Jeanne
…If she doesn’t believe in the Church Fathers, who include among them the disciples and apostles, and the authors of the Bible, then how can she be called Christian? JW’s use the same Bible we do, and she’s the first I’ve seen to protest even the inspired authors of the Bible.
 
Hi,
How can I answer a JW who says that first God created Jesus then through Jesus all other things. The NWT adds other to Colossians 1:15 and following.? They believe that Jesus while in heaven is Michael. When Jesus was born of Mary he is called Jesus. Now that he is back in heaven is he Jesus or Michael? Very confusing.

Thanks Jeanne
Exchanging proof text with JWs is not easy. But here are portions of CAF provided tracts addressing the differences in their understanding of the verses you are discussing.

From CAF tracts on JWs:

Was Christ Created?
  1. “Christ was the first of God’s creations.” Verses cited by Witnesses in support of this claim include: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15). “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen [Christ], the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation’” (Rev. 3:14).
In the first of the two verses, Witnesses think that “first-born” implies succession and inferiority. But the title “first-born” refers to Christ’s place as the chief and unique Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Further, the Greek of this verse can also be translated as “the first-born over all creation,” as in the New International Version of the Bible.

Regarding the second verse from Revelation, it’s hard to see how it helps the Witnesses at all. It merely says Christ was the source of creation. This implies Christ is divine, since God created everything.

The fact that there was no time when the Son did not exist is indicated in John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” This passage also shows that the Son is not a creature because all created things were made through him, and no created things were made except through him.

The God of the Jehovah’s Witnesses

One of the most unique doctrines the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach is that Christ, both before he came to Earth and since he has returned to heaven, was and is Michael the Archangel. To argue this, the Witnesses use 1 Thessalonians 4:16: “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” (Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from the New World Translation [NWT] of the Bible, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the parent organization for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.) From this verse the Witnesses conclude that the Lord Jesus Christ is an archangel because he has “an archangel’s voice.” No other denomination has ever come up with such a conclusion, because every other denomination has concluded that the return of the Lord will simply be heralded by an archangel. But let’s continue with the Witnesses’ argument.

They identify the archangel as Michael from Jude 9: “But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: ‘May Jehovah rebuke you.’” How does this identification work? According to Reasoning from the Scriptures, one of the manuals Witnesses use in door-to-door evangelization, “the expression ‘archangel’ is never found in the plural in the scriptures, thus implying there is only one” (page 218).

Actually, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 suggests an arch-angel’s voice, not to the archangel’s voice, implying there is more than one archangel. The Greek definite article (Greek’s equivalent of “the”) simply is not in the text. (The definite article is used in Jude 9, but there it serves to identify which Michael is being talked about—the Michael who is an archangel. In that context, it no more implies that there is only one archangel than talking about “Smokey the Bear” implies that there is only one bear.)

Reasoning from the Scriptures claims that “the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God” (page 218). The Bible contains little evidence concerning such a strange claim, but what little evidence there is argues against the Witnesses’ position

Look at Hebrews 1:5: " . . . [T]o which one of the angels did he [God] ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’?" This suggests the Son of God can’t be an angel (or an archangel, since “archangel” simply means “high ranking angel”), because it was to the Son that the Father said, “I have become your father.”

Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their own, backhanded way, recognize this. Look at their translation of verse 6: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him,” referring to the Son. The Witnesses want you to think the angels do obeisance to the (sole) archangel, but they know this isn’t what the verse really says. Until 1970 the NWT didn’t use the word “obeisance.” Until then verse 6 read this way: “Let all God’s angels worship him” (italics added). Angels don’t worship an archangel, who, after all, is just another creature. They worship God (Rev. 19:9-10, 22:8-9). When the NWT was first made, this verse slipped by the translating committee and effectively undercut the Witnesses’ assertion that Christ is really Michael.
 
…If she doesn’t believe in the Church Fathers, who include among them the disciples and apostles, and the authors of the Bible, then how can she be called Christian? JW’s use the same Bible we do, and she’s the first I’ve seen to protest even the inspired authors of the Bible.
No. The do not use the same bible we do. They use the NWT which is unique unto themselves. No credible theologian recognizes their translation. I wouldn’t call them Christians.
 
Exchanging proof text with JWs is not easy. But here are portions of CAF provided tracts addressing the differences in their understanding of the verses you are discussing.

From CAF tracts on JWs:

Was Christ Created?
  1. “Christ was the first of God’s creations.” Verses cited by Witnesses in support of this claim include: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15). “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen [Christ], the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation’” (Rev. 3:14).
In the first of the two verses, Witnesses think that “first-born” implies succession and inferiority. But the title “first-born” refers to Christ’s place as the chief and unique Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Further, the Greek of this verse can also be translated as “the first-born over all creation,” as in the New International Version of the Bible.

Regarding the second verse from Revelation, it’s hard to see how it helps the Witnesses at all. It merely says Christ was the source of creation. This implies Christ is divine, since God created everything.

The fact that there was no time when the Son did not exist is indicated in John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” This passage also shows that the Son is not a creature because all created things were made through him, and no created things were made except through him.

The God of the Jehovah’s Witnesses

One of the most unique doctrines the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach is that Christ, both before he came to Earth and since he has returned to heaven, was and is Michael the Archangel. To argue this, the Witnesses use 1 Thessalonians 4:16: “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” (Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from the New World Translation [NWT] of the Bible, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the parent organization for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.) From this verse the Witnesses conclude that the Lord Jesus Christ is an archangel because he has “an archangel’s voice.” No other denomination has ever come up with such a conclusion, because every other denomination has concluded that the return of the Lord will simply be heralded by an archangel. But let’s continue with the Witnesses’ argument.

They identify the archangel as Michael from Jude 9: “But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: ‘May Jehovah rebuke you.’” How does this identification work? According to Reasoning from the Scriptures, one of the manuals Witnesses use in door-to-door evangelization, “the expression ‘archangel’ is never found in the plural in the scriptures, thus implying there is only one” (page 218).

Actually, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 suggests an arch-angel’s voice, not to the archangel’s voice, implying there is more than one archangel. The Greek definite article (Greek’s equivalent of “the”) simply is not in the text. (The definite article is used in Jude 9, but there it serves to identify which Michael is being talked about—the Michael who is an archangel. In that context, it no more implies that there is only one archangel than talking about “Smokey the Bear” implies that there is only one bear.)

Reasoning from the Scriptures claims that “the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God” (page 218). The Bible contains little evidence concerning such a strange claim, but what little evidence there is argues against the Witnesses’ position

Look at Hebrews 1:5: " . . . [T]o which one of the angels did he [God] ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’?" This suggests the Son of God can’t be an angel (or an archangel, since “archangel” simply means “high ranking angel”), because it was to the Son that the Father said, “I have become your father.”

Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their own, backhanded way, recognize this. Look at their translation of verse 6: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him,” referring to the Son. The Witnesses want you to think the angels do obeisance to the (sole) archangel, but they know this isn’t what the verse really says. Until 1970 the NWT didn’t use the word “obeisance.” Until then verse 6 read this way: “Let all God’s angels worship him” (italics added). Angels don’t worship an archangel, who, after all, is just another creature. They worship God (Rev. 19:9-10, 22:8-9). When the NWT was first made, this verse slipped by the translating committee and effectively undercut the Witnesses’ assertion that Christ is really Michael.
Thanks,
This is very helpful.
Jeanne
 
No. The do not use the same bible we do.
This is quite true. They don’t. In general, only Catholics use the same bible you do. The rest of us use a wide variety of versions that usually do not contain what is considered to be “apocrypha.” That in and of itself does not make them ‘not-Christian,’ not if you accept the Baptist who use the KJV as such.
They use the NWT which is unique unto themselves.
Also true. See above: the Catholics also use a version which is “unique unto themselves,” come to think of it. Does that affect YOUR Christianity? I’m just sayin’…
No credible theologian recognizes their translation.
Not if you define 'credible theologian" as “someone who doesn’t accept the NWT,” certainly. 😉
I wouldn’t call them Christians.
I get that. THEY call themselves that, however (at least this week) and whatever opinion they have OF Christ, they do seem to believe that He is central to their theology. That makes them Christian by definition.

It doesn’t make their doctrines correct, or the version of the bible they use correct, or their habits, culture or methods any more palatable. You see, I don’t think that the NWT is a credible translation either, nor do I agree with the vast majority of their doctrines. I DO, however, believe that using fallacious arguments to go after them does no good. For instance, a more powerful way to say this would be to say “I know of no non-Jehovah’s Witness scholar who accepts the NWT as a credible and workable version of the bible.”

After all, even though the Douay-Rheims is not used much by non-Catholic faiths, there isn’t a whole lot of criticism for it’s scholarship: just in the choice of books included in it.

—and debating the status of Jehovah’s Witnesses as “Christian” or not is spectacularly useless.
 

I get that. THEY call themselves that, however (at least this week) and whatever opinion they have OF Christ, they do seem to believe that He is central to their theology. That makes them Christian by definition
They don’t believe ALL of what Jesus is or teaches. They have at best partial truth.
“I know of no non-Jehovah’s Witness scholar who accepts the NWT as a credible and workable version of the bible.”
I thought that is what I said. So I don’t mince words.
After all, even though the Douay-Rheims is not used much by non-Catholic faiths, there isn’t a whole lot of criticism for it’s scholarship:
As well there shouldn’t be.

The NWT was written to conform to the WT beliefs. There is much question about the scholarship of their bible
—and debating the status of Jehovah’s Witnesses as “Christian” or not is spectacularly useless.
“Spectacularly” hummmm debating them at all is useless [edited]

We are now off topic and they will close this thread.

Jeanne
PS If not for the Catholics they or any denomination would have no bible at all.
 
No. The do not use the same bible we do. They use the NWT which is unique unto themselves. No credible theologian recognizes their translation. I wouldn’t call them Christians.
Ah, I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for the info! 🙂
 
I would recommend reading “Surprised by Christ” which is written by a guy who is currently an Orthodox priest, but converted from Judaism to JW to some Protestant (I cant remember, sorry) to Orthodoxy. He spends entire chapters talking about why he realized JW theology was incompatible with the Bible, not even from an Orthodox perspective, but from a generic Christian perspective.
 
I would recommend reading “Surprised by Christ” which is written by a guy who is currently an** Orthodox priest, but converted from Judaism to JW to some Protestant (I cant remember, sorry) to Orthodoxy. **He spends entire chapters talking about why he realized JW theology was incompatible with the Bible, not even from an Orthodox perspective, but from a generic Christian perspective.
That is one confussed person to switch as he did as if he is changing his underwear… 🤷
 


They don’t believe ALL of what Jesus is or teaches. They have at best partial truth.
Oh, I agree with you! However, that is irrelevant to their basic Christianity. That 'partial truth" does the thing.
…I thought that is what I said. So I don’t mince words.
There is a pretty big difference between not mincing words, and being inaccurate. There ARE a few very educated Jehovah’s Witness scholars who like their own ideas: their credentials are as lofty as any Harvard or William and Mary graduate. In fact, they might BE Harvard or William and Mary grads. Not many, I grant you, because education doesn’t seem to be a priority in that faith. However, there are a few. I don’t agree with their conclusions. YOU don’t agree with their conclusions. However, to discount their educational background and credibility because we don’t like their conclusions causes problems. Therefore it is more accurate to say that no credible “non-Jehovah’s Witness” scholar." Keeps us all out of trouble–and gets the point across. 😉

As well there shouldn’t be.

Well, there is a little bit…
…The NWT was written to conform to the WT beliefs. There is much question about the scholarship of their bible
I’m not arguing that point.
…“Spectacularly” hummmm debating them at all is useless because they are brainwashed. and or brain dead
And that is a great example of how not to get them to listen to you.
…We are now off topic and they will close this thread.?quote]

Are we? I rather thought that the topic was JW beliefs regarding Jesus, and the foundation for them. The method we use to discuss it would seem to be very much on topic. 🤷

However, there’s nothing stopping anyone from yanking it back on the rails.
 
JeanneH,

if the person is not even using the Bible, there is no common ground for any fruitful discussion.

Firstly of course, the Bible came first and therefore must possess the advantage of being esteemed higher in reliability. That which came later has to first prove itself if it contradicts that which has been declared earlier.

Secondly, do they have the book of John? If they do show them this:

John 1: 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Bible is very clear, Jesus IS GOD.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top