JWs and the Divinity of Christ

[b_justb]

OK, let me try this as a thread title and see if it works better than my last one.

I was hoping that JW’s that visit here could explain why they deny the Divinity of Jesus when Early Church Fathers and Historians do not. I am hoping that maybe a JW would have quotes or references to Early Christian documents to support their ideas. I would then be able to look at the referenced quotes from say the 1st, 2nd, and/or 3rd centuries and see for myself if the JW claim has historical merit.

Thank you,

 

[catsrus]

Well…good luck with that.
From my time with jws, I recall that they do not know anything about the early church and if they begin to investigate it, they almost always leave “the truth”.
If another jw finds out they’re investigating, it’s a disipline to a disfellowshipping for them.
They are not permitted to look at ANY writings or history that is not approved by the wt. And I can guarentee that the ECF are not on the approved reading list.
As far as your question; jws do not believe in the Trinity. Christ is to them a created being having His first appearance as the Archangel Michael, and returning to that form after resurrection. How they came to this conclusion is so convoluted that I can’t remember the details.
Hopefully, someone else can explain it.
Maybe tommy4321 will respond. He does attempt to explain the position of the wt.

 

[severinus]

Here is a link to the JW view of Jesus’ divinity on Watchtower’s official site:
watchtower.org/library/ti/article_06.htm

Here is their explanation of John 20:28:
**But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.”—John 17:3. **

Taken from: watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htm

The`Watchtower site offers, as catsrus said, no references to the ECF on these points. They do quote other Bible translations when such are favorable to the JW views.

 

[carol_marie]

severinus:

Here is a link to the JW view of Jesus’ divinity on Watchtower’s official site:
watchtower.org/library/ti/article_06.htm

Here is their explanation of John 20:28:
**But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.”—John 17:3. **

Taken from: watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htm

The`Watchtower site offers, as catsrus said, no references to the ECF on these points. They do quote other Bible translations when such are favorable to the JW views.

What I can’t remember is how we (as JW’s) accepted that Jesus was “a god” when throughtout the Bible it clearly states that there is only ONE true God. Therefore… if Jesus was “a god” but not the true God - that would make Him a false god - something so terrible since people only worship false gods in error. (The 1st Commandment) And wouldn’t He have said to Thomas… “Hey… not so fast… I’m NOT God!!!” But He didn’t.

Also, I don’t recall how we interpreted from Genesis: “Let US make man in Our image…” (plural) Who was God talking to? Michael the Archangel? And how is God similar to a created angel?

One more point… The witnesses believe that Jesus was “created.” But they run into trouble in Col 1:15-17 which talks about how Jesus created ALL things… In their Bible (The New World Translation) they “fix” this problem by inserting the word “other” several times… This is how it reads in their Bible:

“He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him, all [other] things were created… in the heavens and on the earth, the things visable and invisable… All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.”

In the first edition of the New World Translation Bible, they neglected to put the word “other” in brackets to signify that they took it upon themselves to add that word. A word that totally changes the meaning of the verse and the relationship of Jesus to the creation.

The next time a JW comes to your door - ask them to read that verse and then expain to you how it is that the “writers” of their Bible were able to add those words???

 

[severinus]

The problem with the Watchtower explanation of John 20:28 is that Thomas either takes the name of God in vain (impossible, especially when Jesus does not correct him), or Thomas really meant to say that Jesus was ‘like a god.’

Since the former is impossible and the latter is not what the Greek (apekrithe Thomas kai eipen auto Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou) says, where does that leave the explanation?

carol marie:

I have always wondered about the JW understanding of Jesus as ‘a god.’ Does it mean something like* godly* or does it mean some kind of subordinate being?

 

[At_His_Feet]

Sev - the meaning that they draw from “a god” has more to do with their understanding of Him as “a mighty one”. (that would fit in with your *some kind of subordinate being?) *

This is their gist behind their “… the Word was a god” rendering of John 1:1 . Understood by them, not as a statement that in His pre-incarnate state He shared the same nature as God the Father, but rather a statement that in His pre-incarnate state, He was “… a mighty one.”

 

[severinus]

At His Feet:

Sev - the meaning that they draw from “a god” has more to do with their understanding of Him as “a mighty one”. (that would fit in with your *some kind of subordinate being?) *

This is their gist behind their “… the Word was a god” rendering of John 1:1 . Understood by them, not as a statement that in His pre-incarnate state He shared the same nature as God the Father, but rather a statement that in His pre-incarnate state, He was “… a mighty one.”

Thanks. I figured it was like that.

But where does the concept of ‘a god’ as a ‘mighty one’ come from? Does that appear anywhere else as a precedent for JWs? I’m not talking about the mistranslation of John 1:1 here; it’s more about where the term ‘a god’ comes from.

I hope that’s clear.

 

[b_justb]

If, as the JW maintain, that Jesus is not divine; how is that His death is redemptive? If it is Jesus’ crucifixion that provides forgiveness of sin, and Jesus is not Divine, doesn’t that mean that any other being of the Father’s liking could have provided forgives of sin?