Jehovah's Witnesses

[Catholic_Dude]

It is not so much that “Jehovah cannnot be a triune God”, but rather, that the Bible no where reveals the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a triune God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always revealed as one person, and never as more than one person.

I’ve been wanting to stay up to date with this thread, but I’m falling behind. I’d like to comment upon this post, because I think some important things need to be cleared up.
The fundamental distinction that needs to be made, which you don’t seem to be grasping, is the difference between Person and Nature. In a nutshell, Nature addresses for us the “What?” questions, while Person addresses the “Who?” questions. Nature tells us qualities about, Person tells us who is acting. A human father and son are two persons, but they each have a human nature, the father “passing on” his nature to another person, his son. **
In the Trinity**, the Three Persons possess the One Indivisible Omnipotent Divine Nature.

Throughout this response, issues addressing Person will be highlighted in Red, while issues addressing Nature will be highlighted in Blue.

When you say God is “always revealed as one person,” under the historical Christian teaching, that thesis is manifestly false for the fact that under historical Christian teaching, the Three Names of the Three Persons are explicitly and repeatedly stated in Scripture: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without this distinction, you’re not really getting at what Christians are teaching, nor at the Scriptural evidence they provide. Mat 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
This is one of the strongest and most explicit proofs for The Three Persons in Scripture.

All through the New Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always distinguished from His son, and His son is not once revealed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The great spirit of human imagination has been untilized so as to imagine such, assumptions have been formulated into doctrine in order to defend such,

This claim, while very true, shows that what you’re addressing is not the Trinity as historically understood by Christians. What you said here applies to Person, and thus we would very much expect God the Father to “always be distinguished from His Son”! For them not to be distinguished would refute the Trinity doctrine by definition!

With this in mind, I would suggest you take a fresh look at your argument, for while it might have some logical claims, it is not actually addressing the very doctrine it claims to address.

John (John 1:1,2) does not say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but John clearly distinguishes the Logos from God whom the Logos was with. John twice says that the Logos was with God, and Jesus identified “God” whom he was with as the “only true God.” (John 17:3,5)

With the proper Person and Nature distinction in place, what you say should be true as far as the Trinity goes:** God the Father** should never be identified as His Son Jesus!

Note that up to this point I’ve pretty much only used Red, not Blue, indicating the issue of Nature is not being addressed. If you are reading Nature into what has been said so far, then it’s likely that you’re misunderstanding the Trinity doctrine, and likely by unintentionally equivocating/conflating the terms Person and Nature into only one notion.

What the trinitarian has done is to imagine and assume that
the first instance of “THEOS” in John 1:1 refers to their alleged first person of the triune God,
and the second instance of “THEOS” refers to their alleged second person
of their alleged triune God.

Careful here: Here is an example of where the Person and Nature distinction needs to be made and will be shown. Without this distinction, the doctrine will be misread, and John 1:1 will be misinterpreted. The way the Greek is set up (e.g using the definite article in the first instance), it should read something like this:Word was with The God,
and the Word was **God[like] **
See what’s happening here? The “first instance of Theos” does indeed refer to the First Person, the Father - and the “first instance of Theos” [the Father] is clearly distinguished from the Word.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)
**
Now, let’s look at the “second instance of Theos.”** The “second instance of Theos” does not have the definite article in Greek, and should not be read as the “first instance of Theos” - otherwise John would be saying something like the following:
Incorrect:**
Word** was with The God,
and the Word was The God** **
All sides agree this is not what John is saying, for it would (incorrectly) be equating/conflating the Person of the Word with the Person of God the Father.** **So what’s the solution? Well, the JW “translation” is partly correct here - though I should add that partly correct is not sufficient. The JW’s render the “second instance of Theos” as “a god” precisely so that the Word is not identified as “first instance of Theos” - and this is understandable. But - and here is the key - adding the indefinite article “a” is not correct either, for it would either be introducing polytheism or adding a new (fourth) person to the Trinity.
The best interpretation - and the correct interpretation - is that John is saying The Word was with The Father in the beginning, and that The Word’s nature is the Nature of God (i.e. Divine Nature). **

The way John put it, in the language he had access to, he identified the Word as God as closely and literally as possible, while not confusing persons by equating the “first instance of Theos” with “****second instance of Theos”**.

John in the context makes it plain that the Logos was with Ton Theon in the beginning, stating this twice. Thus it should be evident that John is not saying that the Logos was Ton Theon with whom he was with in the beginning. Therefore, in saying that the Logos was theos, it should also be evident that John is not using theos as he applies it to the Logos in the same manner as he speaks of Ton Theon with whom the Logos was with in the beginning. Rather than using the great spirit of human imagination so as to imagine and add to the scripture that this is speaking of two alleged persons of triune God, the most direct way is to simply allow scripture to explain scripture.

If you only knew what you were saying! You are largely correct! You’re just mistaken on some crucial distinctions. Of course John is not saying Logos is Ton Theon - i.e. Son is Father - because that’s precisely what the Trinity is not!

That there is a secondary meaning that is given to the word theos is shown by Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 82:6 as recorded by John in John 10:34,35. Jesus said these “gods” (Greek, theoi, plural of theos) are those to whom the Logos of God came. But why does God refer to them as “gods”? Is he saying that they are idols, or false gods? No, there is nothing to give us any reason to believe this. Rather, we believe that he is showing that there is more than one way that the word THEOS can be used.

There is much we agree with here! The distinction Christians would make is that the “gods” of Psalm 82:6 is a poetic reference, to human law judges who became corrupt in their practice. The context and meaning for when theos is applied to the Word is in the context of God the Father’s Divinity, especially described in terms of omnipotent power of creating the universe, etc.

Theos does not always mean God Almighty — EL SHADDAI. Theos in the NT does reflect the Hebraic meaning of words EL and ELOHIM, that is, might, strength, power. Thus, THEOS in the NT, like the Hebrew EL and ELOHIM of the OT, when applied to others than Yahweh, does not mean Supreme Being.

That’s agreed, and that’s not an issue. The issue is distinguishing between Person and Nature, which you don’t appear to be doing, as is shown throughout your comments:

John emphasizes twice that the LOGOS is not TON THEON, by stating that the LOGOS was with TON THEON. … **

He** was, however, one of might, one of power, having a glory with his God and Father

… the proper thought of John 1:1 should be: the LOGOS was with TON THEON, and the LOGOS was mighty

The above is a sampling of your last few paragraphs, which aren’t saying anything new. The point that needs to be made now is that: While your logic is largely correct, your ultimate conclusion is not correct. You need to distinguish between Person and Nature, because you’re simply equivocating/conflating the two, and thus not properly understanding the Trinity! This is a classic St Paul situation where, like early Paul, one is zealous for God, but acting in ignorance of the truth they end up attacking a straw man argument and hurting the good guys.

 

[reslight]

so, reslight, can you explain why Christ asked his apostles to…

“baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”?
wouldn’t it have been simpler to say, “baptize in the name of God Almighty”?

Matthew 28:19 - Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. – World English.

I am inclined that to believe that Eusebius’ earlier quotations of this verse are more correct than what we have received in the extant manuscripts, that is, Jesus told his disciples to to make disciples “in my name.” Eusebius, in his earlier writings, did not quote Jesus as saying “in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit.” Eusebius’ earlier quotations are in greater agreement with what the disciples actually did. (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48) If Eusebius’ earlier quotations are correct, then the reading “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is a later change made to what Jesus had actually stated.

Even in the text as we have received it, however, we find nothing in that that says that the Father is a person of God, the Son is a person of God, and that Holy Spirit is a person of God. The traditional reading does not say that these are three persons, although two of those mentioned are persons. But even if it was speaking of three persons, it does not say or imply that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons in one Supreme Being. The trinitarian has to imagine and assume that the three spoken of are three persons of the one God.

Nor does the singular use of the word “name” signify one God, although that is evidently what many read into the verse. It is apparent that the word “name” here does not refer to any separate appellations of the three mentioned. We have the personal name of the Father — Yahweh. We have the personal name of the Son — Jesus. But the scriptures do not give a personal name for the holy spirit. Therefore the word “name” is either used in the sense of authority or of character. Robertson states concerning the usage in Matthew 28:19: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

The word “Son” designates one who is the offspring of another, and other scriptures show Jesus to be the son, offspring, of “God”. (Matthew 14:33; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:35; John 1:34; 3:18; 10:36) In the expression “Son of God”, does the word “God” mean three persons, or does it mean one person? One has to admit that it refers to one person, not three persons. And thus “God” – when speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – is identified in the New Testament with the God and Father of Jesus. – John 17:3; Acts 3:13-26; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; Hebrews 1:1,2.

Over the years, I have collected a lot information concerning Matthew 28:19. Please see:
godandson.reslight.net/archives/265.html

 

[reslight]

If you can give me verses that say that GOD [not Father[ is NOT equal to Jesus in nature?

Since this goes over the length limit, I am posting this in more than one post.

The default reasoning of the scriptures is that son of the Most High is not the Most High of whom he is the son. (Luke 1:32) That being the case, none of the Bible writers were concerned with offering proof that Jesus is not the Most High. Nevertheless, there are scriptures that show that Jesus is not the Most High, although I am aware that the trinitarian can bring forth his added-on imaginations and assumptions, adding more assumptions upon more assumptions, so as to make these scriptures at least seem to conform with their trinitarian dogma. The distinguishing quality of nature would be that of being the Most High.

In the expression, son of the Most High in Luke 1:32, does “Most High” refer to three persons, or does it refer to one person? Obviously, it is one person, and Jesus identifies that one person as his Father who had sent him. – John 17:3.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is son of the unipersonal Most High, Yahweh. Jesus is never spoken of as the “Most High”; he is not the only Most High Yahweh of whom he is the son. — Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that He Himself (Jehovah/Yahweh) is the only true God, the unipersonal God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being – the Most High – over him; Jesus is not his Most High whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 [Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4]; Matthew 4:7 [Deuteronomy 6:16]; Matthew 4:10 [Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8]; Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 [Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23]; Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12)

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of His holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is the firstborn creature, existing with his God and Father — whom he identifies as “the only true God”, before the world began. — John 1:1; 6:62; 17:1,3,5; Colossians 1:15; Revelaton 3:14.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh as his unipersonal God and Father, represents Yahweh, and was raised and glorified by the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13-26; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.
godandson.reslight.net/archives/263.html

To be continued in my next post…
[/quote]

 

[reslight]

Continued from my last post

If you can give me verses that say that GOD [not Father[ is NOT equal to Jesus in nature?

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus receives his inheritance and dominion (power) from Yahweh, the only Most High. The Most High has not need for anyone to give power to Him, since He is the source of all power. Jesus’ power and authority is given to him by his God, his unipersonal Most High. Jesus is not Yahweh [his unipersonal God and Father] who gives him this dominion, all authority and power (with the evident exception of the position of being the Most High himself — 1 Corinthians 15:27), yet the exercise of this power and authority by Jesus is all to the praise of Yahweh, the unipersonal God and Father of the Lord Jesus. The Bible writers never claimed that Jesus is the ultimate “source” of his own power. — Psalm 2:6-8; 45:7; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-3; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 12:28; 28:28; Luke 1:32; 4:14,18; 5:17; John 3:34; 5:19,27,30; 10:18,36-38; Acts 2:22; 10:38; Romans 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:27; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Colossians 1:15,16; 2:10; Ephesians 1:17-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,4,6,9; 1 Peter 3:22.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by the one Most High Yahweh, the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is not Yahweh who thus anoints him. — Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is given the power of life in himself from the one Most High Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh who gives him this power. — 1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 36:9; John 5:21,25-29.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, through the scriptures reveals that Jesus is the servant of Yahweh; he is not Yahweh whom he serves. — Isaiah 42:1; 53:11; Matthew 12:18; John 3:16,17; 5:30,36; 6:38,44; 8:29,38,42; 10:36; 13:16; 17:3; Acts 4:27,30; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 10:5; 1 John 4:9,10.

The fact is, however, that there is not any proof at all in the scriptures of a God existing as three co-equal, co-eternal, co-substantial persons. You will not find one scripture about such a God. The idea has to added to and read into all the scriptures that are given to support such an idea. The conclusion is that the holy spirit reveals that Jesus is not Yahweh who is the unipersonal God who has made Jesus to sit at the right hand of Himself. — Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-40; Luke 20:39-47; Acts 2:34; Ephesians 1:20-22; Hebrews 1:3,13; 10:12,13; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22.

The scriptural conclusion is that God, through his holy spirit, is telling us that Jesus is not Yahweh whom Jesus worships, serves as a servant, and prays to as his unipersonal God who is the Most High over him. — Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 10:20; Isaiah 42:1; 53:11; Matthew 4:10; 12:18; 27:46; Mark 15:34; Luke 4:8; John 13:16; 17:1,3; 20:27; Acts 4:27,30; Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 2:7; 3:12.

End of response
[/quote]

 

[reslight]

Phil. 2:6-7 “Though being divine in nature, he did not claim equality with God to be grasped but emptied himself taking on the nature of a servant”.

The very fact that he has the claim to be equal with God, simply means, HE IS God, but emptied himself so that the “Word (who was God) may become flesh that dwelleth with us”. (mind boggling isnt it?) If you can Give me ABSOLUTE SCRIPTURAL PROOF to say that Christ is NOT God? if you can,.maybe something that any of the apostles wrote that Christ is not God? and that he is a human incarnate of an Archangel?

“He did not claim equality with God” does not mean that he claimed equality with God, nor does his not considering this as something to grasp mean that he did not grasp this equality because he was already equal to his God. Why would Paul have any reason to mention that equality with his God was not something he sought to grasp, if Paul believed that Jesus was equal to the God of Jesus?

Again, the trinitarian uses his imagination and assumptions to read trinity in what Paul wrote. There is nothing in the verse about God existing as three persons.

Philippians 2:6
hos en morphee theou huparchwn ouch harpagmon
WHO IN FORM OF GOD EXISTING NOT SNATCHING
3739 1722 3444 2316 5224 5225 3756 0725
heegeesato to einai isa thew
HE CONSIDERED THE TO BE EQUAL (THINGS) TO GOD,
2233 3588 1511 2470 2316
Philippians 2:7
alla heauton ekenwsen morpheen doulou labwn en
BUT HIMSELF HE EMPTIED FORM OF SLAVE HAVING TAKEN, IN
0235 1438 2758 3444 1401 2983 1722
homoiwmati anthrwpwn genomenos
LIKENESS OF MEN HAVING BECOME;
3667 0444 1096
Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as obtained from the Bible Students Library DVD.

Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. – New American Standard.

Jesus, although he was existing before he came into the world, possessing a form like his God’s (as do also the angels, although Jesus’ form was higher than the divine being of the angels – Psalm 8:5; Hebrew 2:7), did not consider to grasp for equality with his God, his Supreme Being, as implied of the one spoken of in Isaiah 14:14. Having emptied himself of his former existence in form of his God, he took the form of a bondservant, suffering as though he were like other men, as though he were a sinner, as though having sinful flesh, and as though under the bondage of corruption. – Isaiah 53:4-6; Matthew 8:17; Romans 8:3,20; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 13:12; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 4:1.

In the expression “morphee theou”, however, does “theou” - God - represent one person, or three persons? In Philippians 1:2, does “God” represent one person, or three persons?

Grace to you, and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord, Jesus Christ.

Obviously, “God” speaks of one person, “our Father”, and the Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of as distinct from the one personed “God” that is spoken of.

In Philippians 1:11, we read: “being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.”

Is Paul using the word “God” to represent three persons in this verse, or does he use it to represent one person. Obviously, Paul is speaking of the God and Father of Jesus, and, Jesus is presented as distinct from “God”.

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name;

Is Paul using the word “God” to mean three persons, or one person? Obviously, Paul is using the word to speak of one person, and that one person is depicted as the Most High over Jesus, the Most High who exalted Jesus to a higher position, a higher office – “name”. The Most High needs no one to exalt him to a higher of office, since there no office greater than the Most High. – Hebrews 6:13.

 

[reslight]

John 1:1 - John writes, “the Word was God.” This is clear evidence of Jesus Christ’s divinity. (Note: in the Jehovah’s bible, the passage was changed to “Word was a god.” This is not only an embarrassing attempt to deny the obvious divinity of Christ, but it also violates the first commandment and Isaiah 43:10 because it acknowledges that there is more than one God).

I am not with the JWs (I am associated with the Bible Students movement), but “Jehovah’s Bible,” as far as I am concerned, is the writings of the original autographs that make up what we now style the 66 books of the Bible, which was written in Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic. No translation can claim to be “Jehovah’s Bible”, but rather only a translation of “Jehovah’s Bible.”

Scripturally speaking, that there are gods that such in a manner that does not represent the one true God is acknowledged by Jesus in John 10:34,35. Having discussed John 1:1 and the Biblical usage of the words for “god” before, I refer to that post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6315502&postcount=230

More on John 1:1 may be found at:
godandson.reslight.net/?tag=john-11

I have to go now; Yahweh willing, I will return to respond to the rest later.

 

[raqrodriguez]

I was born and raised Jehovahs Witness.
Send me a pm if you need help still.

There teaching on the generation of 1914 is probably the most recent Watchtower major mess up. They have had to abandon the teaching COMPLETELY or try to COMPLETELY change the meaning.

There are lots of websites with an arsenal of info.
I think you have to pm me to get them because there non Catholic websites.

What, if anything, can I do to help my JW friend see that the WT is not trustworthy?

 

[raqrodriguez]

Hi Fidei,

Did you say you went to a convention? You would have noticed the Bible was used constantly. The Watchtower articles constantly quote the Bible to explain or confirm things. (Using various translations freely – before anyone claims we only use the NWT)
The witnesses won’t be very interested in catholic literature, just as they won’t be too interested in what Russel believed 100 years ago or what early WT articles understood.
Only what the Bible really says.
The WT is not inspired by God, nor was Russel a prophet.
The Bible is God’s word. ***Jesus said: “Your word is truth.” ***(John 17:17) The Bible is the foundation.

It seems a common misunderstanding that we believe things because “the WT said…” or “Russel said…”
Hence, I often hear people trying to discredit these, assuming this will erode our faith. They must think that is the basis of our beliefs. Not so.

For example, if you ask a witness: “Why don’t you believe God is a trinity?” The answer will not be: “Because Charles Taze Russel didn’t believe so” or “Because the WT says.”.
The answer will be “Because the Bible says…”
They will have studied the Bible, probably for years, and are now totally convinced the Trinity is not what it teaches. It should be the same for most subjects of difference.

I hope this helps with your discussions. All the best.

I believe they Study their WT and use the bible to back up their teachings from the WT. The WT takes bible scripture out of context and use it to back up what they want the JW to believe.

 

[raqrodriguez]

Unheard of before what? Before English existed?
An english name unheard of before english existed? You surprise me.
The King James Translation calls Almighty God “Jehovah” at Psalms 83:18 and several other places. (Yet they change it to a title in the New KJT.) in 1600 or something.
Were they wrong to translate YHWH into English?

The thing is Jehovah is an erroneous way of pronouncing God’s name and was NEVER used by the Jews. How can the WT decide how to pronounce YHWH? Who gave them the authority to translate it as such if the Jews did not even pronounce it that way. Yahweh is the way it was pronounced. I read that somewhere… cant remember where lol

 

[JeanneH]

I am not with the JWs (I am associated with the Bible Students movement), but “Jehovah’s Bible,” as far as I am concerned, is the writings of the original autographs that make up what we now style the 66 books of the Bible, which was written in Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic. No translation can claim to be “Jehovah’s Bible”, but rather only a translation of “Jehovah’s Bible.”

Aren’t the Bible Students a break away from the main body of JW’s? And don’t they still follow Russell’s teaching to a certain degree? What bible do your quotes come from? Just curious.

You also assume a lot in your posts.

Actually the bible has 73 books.

 

[reslight]

Aren’t the Bible Students a break away from the main body of JW’s? And don’t they still follow Russell’s teaching to a certain degree? What bible do your quotes come from? Just curious.

Actually, by 1930, most associated with the earlier Bible Students movement had rejected Rutherford’s new organization and Rutherford’s new doctrines that replaced the “ransom for all.” Because the Bible Students movement was going about its affairs without recognizing Rutherford’s organization, Rutherford had the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” adopted in 1931, in order to distinguish his new organization from the Bible Students movement. So from this perspective, most Bible Students would say that Rutherford’s new organization was a break away from the Bible Students.

The central doctrine that binds the Bible Students movement is the “ransom for all.” This was the doctrine that Russell considered to the central doctrine related to the salvation of mankind. As far as I know, all associated with the Bible Students movement hold to that central doctrine. Russell himself was not the one to revive that doctrine in the nineteenth century, since others had recognized it before him. As far as I know, he was, however, the first to organize a whole set of writings explaining that doctrine with detailed scriptural explanations, while showing how many traditional doctrines would diminish or annul that doctrine. I am sure that had Russell known of the JWs’ Armageddon doctrine, which would have millions of unenlightened men and women, along with their children, condemned to eternal destruction without benefiting from the ransom, he would have shown from the scriptures how such a doctrine denies the scriptural basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

I quote from many different translations/versions, if that is what you mean. I usually use the World English Bible, a modern-English version based on the American Standard Version, not because I believe it totally accurate; I do not believe that any translation/version is totally accurate.

 

[reslight]

John 1:2-3 - He (the Word) was in the beginning with God and all things were made through Him (the Word who was God).

Since the Word was not the only true God, but was [past tense] with the only true God, the most direct and scriptural way of viewing the matter is that the Word was [past tense] mighty, a mighty being with the only true God. – John 1:1; 17:1,3,5.

It should be obvious, by comparing John 1:1,2 and John 17:1-5, that Jesus was with the only true God. Would John then say that Jesus “was” [past tense] the only true God? John twice states that the Word was [past tense] with God, thus giving emphasis to this thought. The thought of two persons as the only true God is not inherent in the words of John 1:1,2, but the idea has to be imagined through the spirit of human imagination, assumed, added to, and read into what John wrote. One has to imagine and assume that John, in referring to “God” whom the Word was with, means the first person of the alleged trinity as the Father. We know it is true that “God” whom the Word was with is the only true God and the Father of Jesus, because of Jesus’ words as recorded in John 17:1,3,5. However, the part about the Father being a person of a trinity has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what John wrote in John 1:1,2, and Jesus’ reference to the Father as the “only true God” in John 17:3 has to either be ignored, or in some manner be interpreted (again this is often done by imaginative assumptions being added to and read into what Jesus stated) in order make Jesus’ words still mean that Jesus is a person of the only true God. Likewise, the trinitarian has to imagine, assume, add to, and read into what John said that the Word is the alleged second person of the trinity.

So why would John say that the Word was “God”, if we are not to imagine and assume he is a person of the only true God? Is there not only one God? Can Jesus be “God” who is not the only true God? And wouldn’t this mean that there is more than one true God? The answer again lies in comparing spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment (1 Corinthians 2:10-12), not by imagining, adding, and reading into the scripture a lot of assumptions that would make Jesus a person of the only true God. What is the true scriptural answer to why John would refer to Jesus as God?

It is obvious that John is not referring to Jesus as “God” in the same manner in which he speaks of “God” whom Jesus was with. In other words, it should be obvious that Jesus is not “God” whom he was with, and as mentioned before, John emphasized this by repeating it again in John 1:2. The Greek word for God is usually transliterated as “theos”, and forms of this word are used twice in John 1:1. What many do not realize is that there is a scriptural Hebraic tradition that allows the usage of the words for “God” in a more general sense of might, power, authority, etc. Most translations of the Bible into English as well as other languages recognize this usage. We can use the most popular English translation — the King James Version — to illustrate such usage. This can be demonstrated in such verses where the KJV renders the word for “God” (forms of EL and ELOHIM in the Hebrew) so as to denote strength, power, might, rulership, etc., such as in the following verses: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). If one were to substitute “false god” in these verses, in most instances we would have some absurd statements. This proves that these words are used in a sense other than the only true God, or as “false god.” If such Hebraic usage is applied to Jesus (who was with the only true God) in John 1:1, we would have “the Word was mighty,” and all makes perfect sense without adding all of the imaginations and assumptions that would have to accompany viewing the scripture through the tint of the trinity doctrine. Jesus was indeed a mighty one with the only true God before the world of mankind was made.

 

[reslight]

John 1:2-3 - He (the Word) was in the beginning with God and all things were made through Him (the Word who was God).

panta di autou egeneto kai chwris autou
ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM CAME TO BE, AND APART FROM HIM
3956 1223 0846_3 1096 2532 5565 0846_3
egeneto oude hen
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING).
1096 3761 1520
ho gegonen
WHICH HAS COME TO BE
3739 1096
Westcott & Hort Interlinear

The only true God whom the Word was [past tense] with made all these things though [Greek, dia] the Word (Jesus, who was not the only true God). The Greek word “all” is from a form of the word usually transliterated as “pas.” In all its forms, this word seldom, if ever, pertains to everything that exists. In John 1:3, it pertains to “all” that came to be, as related to the beginning of the world of mankind that was made through the Word. (John 1:1,10) It was into this “world” that the Word came, and this world that was made through him did not recognize him. Before the beginning of this world, Jesus existed as a mighty being with the only true God, having a glory that he did not possess while he was in the days of his flesh. (John 17:5; Hebrews 5:7) Paul spoke of the glory of the celestial and glory of the terrestrial; he did not mix the two glories. (1 Corinthians 15:40) Jesus did have the celestial glory before he became flesh, but while he was in the days of his flesh, he did not have the celestial glory, for why would he ask for it if he possessed it? Nevertheless, the glory that Jesus had is put in the past tense of John 1:1, he was theos (mighty), which agrees with John 17:5. It was the glory that he had in the past, but which he did not possess while he was in the days of his flesh.

Actually, what John said was that without the Word not one was created. The word “one” is in Greek neuter form — hen — of the word “heis“; and “all” — Greek, panta – is a form of the Greek “pas“. (The words “things” and “thing” are added by the translators.)

Another form of the Greek word “pas” is used in Romans 8:22: “For we know that all [pasa] creation groans and travails in pain together until now.” The “all creation” that is being referred to in Romans 8:22 does not include the angels, the stars, the sun, the moon, etc., but rather to the world of mankind that has been subjected to vanity (Romans 8:20; Ecclesiastes 1:2) due to Adam’s sin. (Romans 5:12-19) Thus, absolutely “all creation” in the universe is not included in the “all creation”, neither in Romans 8:20, nor in what is said in John 1:3. Indeed, if one does a study of the usage of all forms of the word “pas” in the New Testament, one will see that this word rarely means absolutely everything in the universe, but that it is always understood in the context as well as common evidence. John 1:10 indicates that in John 1:3, the “all” that is being referred to the world of mankind, as it is in Romans 8:22. The only true God (John 17:1,3) is the Creator (Mark 10:6; 13:19 ); the prehuman Jesus is the instrument — the agent — that the Creator used to bring into being the creation that is being spoken of.

Additionally, the negative usage of terms such as “not one” is also subject to what is being spoken of. In Hebrews 2:8, for instance, in speaking what has been subjected to man as spoken of in Psalm 8:6, we read: “For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now [due to the sin of Adam, man has been subjected to futility – Romans 5:12-19; 8:20] we don’t see all things subjected to him, yet.” Note that the scripture says that God left nothing that is not subject to him (man). Does these mean that God subjected absolutely everything in the entire universe to man? Absolutely not! Psalm 8:7,8 describes the “all things” that was subjected to man, which corresponds with Genesis 1:26,28. All that was subjected to man pertains to all the earth, not absolutely all in the universe.

 

[reslight]

John 1:2-3 - He (the Word) was in the beginning with God and all things were made through Him (the Word who was God).

The beginning in John 1:1 is the same “beginning” that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1. That “beginning” is shown by Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 to be the entire “six days” that are spoken of in Genesis 1:3-31. (This “beginning” then is after Yahweh had created the universe.) The “beginning” is not in reference to the “beginning” of the material universe, and not even the planet earth itself. We need to realize that the word “earth” has more than one meaning in the scriptures, and also that the word heaven(s) has more than one meaning. The heavens where God and the angels live (1 Kings 8:30,39; 2 Chronicles 20:6; Psalm 11:4; Matthew 5:16,45,48; 6:1,9; 18:10; 22:30; 24:36; Mark 12:25; 13:32; ) already existed before that first day, but the heavens — the sky — above the dry land and the things and living creatures related to that “heavens” did not begin to exist until the second “day”. (Genesis 1:6-8) Before the creative acts of ‘day one’ began, the planet earth already “was” (Genesis 1:2), but the “earth” — the dry land — upon that planet, and the things included upon that earth, did not begin to appear until the third day. (Genesis 1:9-13) It is the “heavens and earth” that are described as being created during the six days that is the “beginning” that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1, and also in John 1:1.

When speaking of creation, what does the word the “beginning” usually refer to in the New Testament? Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6 refer to “the beginning” in reference to creation of the man and woman, which took place on the sixth day of creation as related in Genesis 1:26-31. In Matthew 19:8 “the beginning” refers to the original marriage arrangement as provided by God after creating Eve, which was also part of the sixth day of creation. Matthew 24:21 and Mark 13:19 refer to the beginning of the world (kosmos); this world is described in John 1:10 as the world into which the Word came, but which world did not recognize the Word in their midst. The Greek word “kosmos” as used in the Bible, refers to the the world existing upon the planet earth; it does not refer to the entire universe. Thus, it is speaking of the world of mankind, not the entire material universe, nor of the angels. This is the “world” that the Word came into, and that did not recognize him. (John 1:10) Thus, it can be seen that the NT writers in connection with “the beginning” of creation understood that this beginning was in reference to things upon the planet earth, not to the entire universe itself.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Matthew 28:19 - Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. – World English.

Even in the text as we have received it, however, we find nothing in that that says that the Father is a person of God, the Son is a person of God, and that Holy Spirit is a person of God.

Well, the Father is (obviously) a Person and God, so I don’t know how you can suggest otherwise. And if that’s admitted, one must be open to seeing how Christians read this passage, even if you don’t agree with it.

The traditional reading does not say that these are three persons, although two of those mentioned are persons.

I’m not sure how this helps your case: 2 of the 3 mentioned are clearly persons, but somehow the third is not? Again, when this much is conceded, you should be open to the possibility the Holy Spirit is a person as well.

But even if it was speaking of three persons, it does not say or imply that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons in one Supreme Being. The trinitarian has to imagine and assume that the three spoken of are three persons of the one God.

The Jewish mind held God in such pre-eminence above everything else that to place other persons alongside God would be akin to blasphemy. The way the verse is given, with “in the Name” as singular and Three Persons mentioned is indeed the framework of the Trinity, even if you don’t accept that reading.

Nor does the singular use of the word “name” signify one God, although that is evidently what many read into the verse. It is apparent that the word “name” here does not refer to any separate appellations of the three mentioned. We have the personal name of the Father — Yahweh. We have the personal name of the Son — Jesus. But the scriptures do not give a personal name for the holy spirit. Therefore the word “name” is either used in the sense of authority or of character. Robertson states concerning the usage in Matthew 28:19: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

What is astonishing to me is that you actually are making the Trinitarian argument and not realizing it! You are correct that “name” here doesn’t refer to any separate appellations, and that’s because it applies to Nature and not Person - And this is recognized when you correctly point out that the singular “name” refers to power/authority, for that is referring to Nature (i.e. the Godhead). The Three Persons with One Power.

Also, when you say the “scriptures do not give a personal name for the holy spirit,” you are not making sense for Holy Spirit is the Third Person’s name.

The word “Son” designates one who is the offspring of another, and other scriptures show Jesus to be the son, offspring, of “God”.

Yes, and this is important as far as the Trinity goes, for a father-son relationship (a father cannot be a father without offspring) indicates father-person passes on his same nature to son-person. Thus the Father and Son, being two distinct Persons, have the same Divine Nature.

 

[reslight]

John 1:14 - the Word (who is God) became flesh (Jesus) and dwelled among us, full of grace and truth.

Since Jesus states his existence with the only true God and states his separatenesss from the only true God as recorded in John 17:3,5, the default assumption is not that the Word of the only true God is the only true God, but that the Word is not the only true God, as I have already shown. Indeed, the default assumption harmonizes beautifully with the rest of the Bible, and is supported by the rest of the Bible, without using the spirit of human imagination to add to the scriptures a story about the only true God existing as three persons.

Nevertheless, if the only true God, the Most High, became flesh, then that would mean that the flesh of Jesus was the Most High, which is not what trinitarians would usually say, but they seem to overlook this detail when they come to John 1:14, and insist that the Most High became flesh, although in their explanations they do not say that he “became” flesh, or that he “was made” flesh, for they have used the great spirit of human imagination so as the reword the scripture into “he clothed himself with flesh”, claiming that God simply added to his God being the flesh being, thus making Himself both the God being and a flesh being as the same time, all of which, of course, has to imagined with the spirit of human imagination, and added to, and read into the scripture, and in doing so, actually changing what the scripture really states. Yes, the Word of the only true God did indeed become flesh. The only true God Himself, however, did not become flesh.

On the other hand, if the flesh of Jesus was God Almighty, or if the alleged dualism were to be true, then this would make voide the purpose of Jesus’ condemning sin the flesh. (Romans 8:3) It was only because Jesus became flesh, as the exact equivalent to Adam before Adam sinned (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6), that Jesus could condemn sin the flesh. If Jesus, while in the days of his flesh, was also the Most High, then, rather than condemning sin the flesh, Jesus justified sin the flesh, for such would prove that in order for Adam to have obeyed the Most High, then Adam would have needed to have been the Most High. Jesus in his being, however, was like Adam – nothing more, nothing less – while he was in the days of his flesh, but instead of disobeying as did Adam, Jesus never once sinned. It is because he was human being, a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), that his obedience condemned sin the flesh, for it proved that a sinless man could obey the Most High. It was through his obedience that life and incorruption came to light for mankind. (2 Timothy 1:10) Through his obedience, he was the light of the world, while he was in the world. – John 9:5 (the “world” referring to the world of mankind that was made through him – John 1:10).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Nevertheless, if the only true God, the Most High, became flesh, then that would mean that the flesh of Jesus was the Most High, which is not what trinitarians would usually say, but they seem to overlook this detail when they come to John 1:14, and insist that the Most High became flesh, although in their explanations they do not say that he “became” flesh, or that he “was made” flesh, for they have used the great spirit of human imagination so as the reword the scripture into “he clothed himself with flesh”, claiming that God simply added to his God being the flesh being, thus making Himself both the God being and a flesh being as the same time, all of which, of course, has to imagined with the spirit of human imagination, and added to, and read into the scripture, and in doing so, actually changing what the scripture really states. Yes, the Word of the only true God did indeed become flesh. The only true God Himself, however, did not become flesh.

On the other hand, if the flesh of Jesus was God Almighty, or if the alleged dualism were to be true, then this would make voide the purpose of Jesus’ condemning sin the flesh. (Romans 8:3) It was only because Jesus became flesh, as the exact equivalent to Adam before Adam sinned (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6), that Jesus could condemn sin the flesh. If Jesus, while in the days of his flesh, was also the Most High, then, rather than condemning sin the flesh, Jesus justified sin the flesh, for such would prove that in order for Adam to have obeyed the Most High, then Adam would have needed to have been the Most High. Jesus in his being, however, was like Adam – nothing more, nothing less – while he was in the days of his flesh, but instead of disobeying as did Adam, Jesus never once sinned. It is because he was human being, a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), that his obedience condemned sin the flesh, for it proved that a sinless man could obey the Most High. It was through his obedience that life and incorruption came to light for mankind. (2 Timothy 1:10) Through his obedience, he was the light of the world, while he was in the world. – John 9:5 (the “world” referring to the world of mankind that was made through him – John 1:10).

What needs to be addressed here then is in what sense the Word (whatever you take that to mean, not a literal word I assume) became flesh. Without the taking on of a second nature (as orthodox Christianity states), your only option is that the Word stopped being the Word at one point and became something wholly new - which would have various problems (e.g. the notion of Father-Son would become defunct), as well as be a sort of pagan re-incarnation type thing.

 

[JeanneH]

Actually, by 1930, most associated with the earlier Bible Students movement had rejected Rutherford’s new organization and Rutherford’s new doctrines that replaced the “ransom for all.” Because the Bible Students movement was going about its affairs without recognizing Rutherford’s organization, Rutherford had the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” adopted in 1931, in order to distinguish his new organization from the Bible Students movement. So from this perspective, most Bible Students would say that Rutherford’s new organization was a break away from the Bible Students.

The central doctrine that binds the Bible Students movement is the “ransom for all.” This was the doctrine that Russell considered to the central doctrine related to the salvation of mankind. As far as I know, all associated with the Bible Students movement hold to that central doctrine. Russell himself was not the one to revive that doctrine in the nineteenth century, since others had recognized it before him. As far as I know, he was, however, the first to organize a whole set of writings explaining that doctrine with detailed scriptural explanations, while showing how many traditional doctrines would diminish or annul that doctrine. I am sure that had Russell known of the JWs’ Armageddon doctrine, which would have millions of unenlightened men and women, along with their children, condemned to eternal destruction without benefiting from the ransom, he would have shown from the scriptures how such a doctrine denies the scriptural basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

I quote from many different translations/versions, if that is what you mean. I usually use the World English Bible, a modern-English version based on the American Standard Version, not because I believe it totally accurate; I do not believe that any translation/version is totally accurate.

Thanks for the response.

I asked because your postings sound like the JW’s pretty much to the letter.

 

[Fidei]

Reslight,

human assumptions will only lead to destruction. What we must follow is what bible plainly teaches and what the apostles plainly believed, we do not need to twist translations or force scripture to be what it is not.

I.E in John 6, since Christ said that the bread and wine is his TRUE body and blood, why should we assume something entirely different? should we change what is said just because our human minds cant comprehend the meaning of what the divine can do? should we change the meaning to a more “logical” sentence?, “this is a symbol of] my body” just so that we might become at ease with understanding it? that’s absolute butchering of scripture! Ive come through this topic after a JW elder explained to me his perception about the Eucharist–only recently have i grasped the mind of a JW why they can’t accept both the Trinity and Eucharistic miracles—his explanations always lead to one thing—it is physically impossible (plus their hokey-pokey of verses). Who are we to put God in a box just because our human imagination is limited?

As for the Trinity, no question about it that the early Church fathers clearly believed so, It is not through “human imagination” as you say it is, but through what the epistles and testimonies plainly say about Christ, you need not explain or refute the verses Ive thrown on post #253 because they all say one thing, Christ being a PERSON of the divine nature, as God himself! we are taught by sacred scripture even the prophets of old have foretold of the coming of the Lord in Israel. John the baptist prepared himself and “made the way straight for the Lord God of Israel is coming” (Matt. 3:3, Is 40:3)

also with the early disciples…

Ignatius of Antioch
“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

the JW bible, is in my opinion, full of human interpretations, CTR believed in the “cross”, but the latter JW org. changed this to “stake”, only one of them had formal (to say the least) study of biblical Greek and none of Classical Gk. and Hebrew and all done in secrecy, only recently have they revealed the real translators of this “bible”. they added “others” with regards to Christ creating all things for it states that Christ is also the Creator! these are just some verses that they had to force to fit into their doctrine.

I admire the protestants though, they stick to the ORIGINAL bible even though their beliefs are different.

pretty much like…
-Catholics use “this is my body” and believes that it IS his body!
-Protestants use “this is my body” but believes its as a symbol
-JW’s believes it as also a symbol AND use “this is a symbol of my body”

note the huge deviation bet. both Catholic and protestant translations and the NWT.