JW's - Proving to JW's that Jesus is God

[Daniel_Marsh]

A rose by any other name…

quotes-watchtower.co.uk/god_s_prophet.html

If steve’s quote is correct than we have the watchtower contradicting itself.

Not very trustworthy is it?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

And yet, reading and/or the possession of anti-JW and non JW religious material is strongly discouraged and in a lot of cases is a disfellowshipping offense by the Society.

How does this mesh with your current personal “theology”?

was this answered?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Thank you for your contibution to this discussion.

When Thomas said “My God” to Jesus, many believe this proves Jesus is Jehovah God, the Almighty.

My question was simply when Jesus called out “My God” here and referred to “my God” in many other places (Rev 3:12 for example), who was Jesus considering to be his God?

So, if Jesus is Almighty God, does he have a God?

Steve

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Yes, Jesus the man has God the Father, no problem for us because both persons are divine.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What is title matching?

It is the claim that two people share the same title, thus they must be the same person. Whereas, If two people share the same title they may be of the same nature. President Bush senior and President Bush Jr are both presidents ( same title ), but are not the same person, but they both share the same human nature.

We use alpha and omega, first and last to show that Jesus and God the father share the same divine nature because there can only be one first and last, alpha and omega in the divine sense of those titles. Steve argues that those titles have both a divine and natural or human meaning. But, anyone knowledgeable of Hebrew knows that “first and the last” only refers to God’s nature of being eternal.

Hebrews 13:8

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

So no comment on why this glorified god/man Jesus is referring to someone else as “his God”? And no comment on “his God’s” name?

Why can Ruth say something like this and we all know she is talking about Jehovah, but when Jesus says it, no one will just say Jesus’ God was Jehovah?

Steve

Jesus is by nature fully God and fully Man. As a man Jesus calls God the Father, “my God and your God”. Jesus in heaven is still fully God and fully Man, so we don’t see a problem with him referring to God the Father as my God in Rev 3. This problem exists in your mind because you do not understand our theology.

As for his ressurrected body, read I Cor 15

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Thank you for asking. Here at this scripture, along with Matt 22:42, Luke 20:41, and John 7:42 Jesus identifies himself as the mystery “my Lord” sitting next to Jehovah as mentioned at Psa 110:1-5

As discussed earlier in this thread, Jehovah is sitting next to Jesus talking with him. I maintain that common sense indicates if John was sitting next to Mary talking to her, no one in their right mind would argue that Mary is John. However, that is what is being argued… that Jesus is Jehovah, even though the scripture shows Jehovah talking to the person next to him.

You know, I really try to understand how Trinitarians think, and I understand some scriptures can be ambiguous and take more thought and analysis. And so, I often tell people I understand how some Trinitiarians can focus on certain scriptures and believe as they do.

This Psa 110:1-5 is so clear cut, I’m wondering if anyone here will at least acknowledge it exactly fits the model that JW’s believe…

Steve

We are not arguing that Jesus is God the Father, that is sabellism or modalism which we do not believe. We are saying that Jesus has the same divine nature as the Father.

President Bush senior sitting next to President Bush Jr. are clearly two persons, but they both share the same human nature.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Why do some Bible versions render Titus 2:13 as if it were referring only to one person, Jesus, calling him God and Savior?

In the New World Translation Titus 2:13 reads: “While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”

However, many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation.

A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.”

Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’

Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars.

For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules.

A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, ... ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek.

In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.

Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams.

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/nwtbiased.htm

Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion said,

Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers.

There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate 2 Pet. 1:1, “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and Tit. 2:13, “our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus.”… Scholarship, real scholarship, seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations will be destroyed

aomin.org/GRANVILL.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I would also like to add another verse:

2 Peter 1:1 (NWT)

1 Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilege with ours, by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ:

The New World Tranlatsion admits that bracketed words do not appear in the original text. Therefore, this verse should read like this without the [the]:

… our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Which is similar to another expression used in reference to Jesus.

2 Peter 1:11

11 In fact, thus there will be richly supplied to YOU the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Since the original text contradict Jehovah’s Witness theology, it does not surprise me that the NWT would add a “the.”

God Bless,
Michael

Amen, even by adding the word “the” which is not in the greek text, proves that they know nothing about translation. Steve can pretend otherwise all he wants.
pfrs.org/sharp.html

Granville Sharp Greek Grammar Rule #1

The grammar of the Greek cannot be missed. As said, if the article ("the") appeared before "Savior" in the Greek text, then, and only then can we justify the "two Persons" argument asserted by the JWs.

But there is not. Specifically though, these verses fall under an important Greek rule: Granville Sharp #1 (however there are six Sharp rules). Also known as the TSKS rule (i.e., "The"-"Substantive"-"Kai"-"Substantive").

Sharp's Greek rule simply stated: When the copulative kai ("and") connects two personal nouns ("God," "Savior") which are singular and not proper nouns12 both nouns refer to the first-named person.13

If the JWs insist that these verses cannot possibly be referring to only Jesus, please read to them, even from their Bible (NWT) 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20, 3:18:

the entrance to the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:11; NWT; emphasis added).

Certainly if, after escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2:20; NWT; emphasis added).

go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (3:18; NWT; emphasis added).

No one would say that these verses above are speaking of two Persons. And the Greek construction is virtually the same at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Notice, 2 Peter 1:1 compared to verse 11:

Verse 1: tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou
of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ

  Verse 11:   tou      kuriou   hēmōn    kai   sōtēros      Iēsou  Christou
                      	         of the   Lord      of us       and     Savior      Jesus   Christ

The JWs will admit that “Lord and Savior” in verses 1:11, 2:20 and 3:18 are in reference to Jesus only. But these verses are the same Granville Sharp TSKS constructions as 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 (also 2 Thess. 1:12)!

christiandefense.org/jw_deity.htm#gransharp

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What is NWT? If it is a Bible translation, which is it based on? Is it a translation of a translation, like the Bible Paraphrased?

Many of the watchtower translations in the NWT are concept by concept from Greber’s NT, who was a spiritualist. They go out of their way to mistranslate texts to fit their theology.

I find it interresting, that they overlook Matthew 3:3 in their translation, because it is talking directly about Jesus,

"This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: “Listen! Someone is crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU people! Make his roads straight.’”

It was Jesus, who came, not God the Father. How funny is that?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

NWT = Found to be one of the most accurate Bible Translations by a non-JW professor.

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

Both the book, and this review were done by non-JW’s.

Steve

Note: someone posted a link to a discussion between your professor and someone else, that refutes NWT translation of “a god” in John 1:1. I realize this is a long thread and may be easy to miss it.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

NWT = Found to be one of the most accurate Bible Translations by a non-JW professor.

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

Both the book, and this review were done by non-JW’s.

Steve

DID YOU KNOW ? ? ?

Hebrew versions cited in the New World Translation often recognize Jesus as יהוה.

from the book

The New World Translation and Hebrew Versions
Click on the links below to read citations from this book.

On the road to Damascus, one Hebrew version describes the answer to Saul from heaven in this way,** “And Jehovah God said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.’” **

Did the translators of the Hebrew versions always render kyrios or theos from Hebrew Scripture quotations back into its original Tetragrammaton form?

1 Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts.” Seven Hebrew versions use the Tetragrammaton in this verse.

Is the Hebrew word haAdhohn (“Lord; Master”) always translated as “Jehovah God” as stated in Appendix 1H of the New World Translation Reference Edition?

How is haAdhohn used in Hebrew versions?

How is יהוה translated into English in Hebrew versions which have an accompanying English text?

How frequently do Hebrew versions use haAdhohn? How frequently does the New World Translation render this same word as “Jehovah” or as “Lord”?

Click here to order your free copy of this book.

tetragrammaton.org/did_you_know.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

part 1 (of 4 parts):

bible-researcher.com/new-world.html

The New World Translation
New Testament, 1950. Frederick W. Franz, ed., New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Rendered from the Original Language by the New World Translation Committee. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1950.

Bible, 1961. Frederick W. Franz, ed., The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee. Revised A.D. 1961. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1961. The Old Testament was originally published in parts from 1953 to 1960. The whole was revised for the one-volume edition in 1961, and subsequently revised in 1970 and 1984.

The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the “principal translator of the Society’s New World Translation” was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James Penton, “to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz.” (2) Franz afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible for the revisions…

[Moderator Note: Please remember not to post entire articles.]

bible-researcher.com/versions.html

I forgot about that site, does it list all of Steve’s translations?

Steve can you list just the translators, and titles that you use without the comments? You know just a list, like

Wuest, New expanded translation
Young, Literal Translation of the new testament

with year published if given so others can look them up at this site.

bible-researcher.com/versions.html

thanks

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Where does it say Jesus is the arch-angel Michael?

There is no explict reference to the Son of God being Micheal the Archangel. In fact, I think they may have to use title matching to come to that conclusion.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Mike,

Yes, Jehovah made statements he was the only Creator, however, you should also note he said the same thing about being the only Savior. And then the Bible goes on to show him sending other people as “saviors”… How are we to understand him saying he’s the “only” savior? I view it that he takes full credit for the role, but uses others, or delegates to others to achieve that for him. Jehovah used the same method in Creation. He takes full credit but achieved this through Jesus Christ who in turn gives credit to his Father.

(Colossians 1:15-17) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created** through him and for him**. 17 Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things were made to exist,

(Revelation 3:14) “And to the angel of the congregation in La•o•di•ce´a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness,** the beginning of the creation **by God,

…

who exercise faith in him.—Eph 5:23; 1Jo 4:14; Joh 3:16, 17.

Just for reference, the watchtower interpretation of Revelation 3:14 comes from Uriah Smith, no one before him intepreted this text as they Smith did before then to my knowledge.

h arch thV ktisews tou qeou

Ê ARXÊ TÊS KTISEWS TOU THEOU

The Beginning of the Creation of God.

The “ruler” (arche, “source,” “origin”) further amplifies the Amen statement. Paul used arche in Colossians 1:18 to describe Christ as the source or origin of all creation (not the first created; cf. Prov 8:22; John 1:3), no doubt to correct a heresy. Since Colosse was a neighboring city of Laodicea, it is not improbable that the same heresy was also affecting the sister church at Laodicea. But this is not explicit. What is plain is this: When Christ addresses a church that is failing in loyalty and obedience, he is to them the “Amen” of God in faithfulness and in true witness, the only one who has absolute power over the world because he is the source and origin of all creation (1:17; 2:8; 22:13) (EBC).

The beginning of the creation of God (hê archê tês ktiseôs tou theou). Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works (Col 1:15, 18, a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3; Heb 1:2, as is made clear by 1:18; 2:8; 3:21; 5:13) (RWP).

forananswer.org/Rev/Rv3_14.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The argument seems reasonable at first glance. However, looking just a little deeper we see that Jesus authorized his apostles to forgive sin also. Certainly, when they forgave sin, it didn’t make them Jehovah, did it? Thus, the argument that Jesus **MUST **be God, because we forgave sin, falls apart.

(John 20:19-23) Therefore, when it was late on that day, the first of the week, and, although the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: “May YOU have peace.” 20And after he said this he showed them both his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord. 21Jesus, therefore, said to them again: “May YOU have peace. Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending YOU.” 22*And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit. 23 If YOU forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if YOU retain those of any persons, they stand retained.”

Just as Jesus authorized his apostles to forgive sin, Jesus had received that same authorization from his Father, Jehovah God…

(Mark 2:7-11) “Why is this man talking in this manner? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?” 8But Jesus, having discerned immediately by his spirit that they were reasoning that way in themselves, said to them: “Why are YOU reasoning these things in YOUR hearts? 9Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and pick up your cot and walk’? 10*But in order for YOU men to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth,”—he said to the paralytic: 11 “I say to you, Get up, pick up your cot, and go to your home.”

Where exactly does it say, that the Son of God was granted authority by the Father to forgive sin?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If you look up the scriptures in your Catholic Bible, you will see that YHWH says he is the only Savior. However, we see he sent people to do his saving work for him and they were called saviors.

The point is that the Bible often says, YHWH is the “only” person that does something and then we find other occurances where other people are called by the exact same title.

Check it out in your own Bible.

Steve

Would not context, define the meaning of savior in the given context? For example, one could say that moses was a savior because God used him to lead isreal out of egypt. So, with that in mind, what is the exact meaning of savior when it is applied to God and when it is applied to Jesus? in your opinion.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Wow Dan, I think you just broke a record in terms of posting the most consecutive posts in a thread…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Wrong! The “firstbborn of creation” is not a reference to the fact that Jesus was the first to be created. A text out of context is a pretext. If you actually read the passage, it explains what “firstborn of craetion” means:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 BECAUSE by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

He is the firstborn of creation because it is through Him that all things were created, and hence he has preeminence over creation. By His death and ressurrection, he is also the “firstborn of the dead” and hence has preeminence over that as well.

Colossians 1:18-19

He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him

To be first is to have preeminence. “Firstborn” in this passage means to have a place of honor, preeminence over. For example, God made David “firstborn.”

Psalm 89:27

27 Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn,
The most high of the kings of the earth.

Jesus is firstborn over creation because all things came to be through him and thus, by right, he is preeminent over all creation. The creator always has preeminence over his creation. He is firstborn over the dead because by His death and resurrection he has defeated the forces of sin and death and thus has preeminence over them.

God Bless,
Michael

I think may have been you who pointed out from Col 1, it is the Son of God, “whom all things consist or are held together”. If that is true, then he is holding himself together which is exactly what God does. I am that I am.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Your claim (quoting Christian theologians) that the Trinity isn’t explicitly taught in Scripture but implicit can be just as true as the Michael Archangel/Jesus WT claim, since you say it is implicit within Scripture (I believe it is nowhere found neither do historical Christian writings. And as I said earlier, implicit truth is just as true as explicit truth yet you deny the Trinity even on implicit grounds.
The idea that Michael the Archangel is Jesus is purely subjective being their really is NO objective support for it, it is a creation from the WT. The Trinity however, has deep historical roots within the writings of the early church fathers, which is objective evidence.

The very concept of “Bible Alone” is not taught in scripture. Maybe, Steve will enlighten us on why he believes such to be the case in a new thread.

 

[BibleSteve]

In fairness, Steve, has a JW ever been disfellowshipped for reading a book contray to watchtower theology?

Your question is off topic, but I’ll review the point and the context for the question.

Anytime a critic want’s to criticize something about the WTS for any reason, I’m curious to see if they apply the same concern to their own church. Most often, the critic has no problem that their own Church organization does it, which seems odd… It’s OK for their own church, but they want to criticize someone else?

I belive the orginal complaint was about JW’s not reading certain books. I asked if the person was concerned with the CC’s policy of banning books, and excommunicating those who read them:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html
…"all the faithful are commanded not to presume to read or possess any books contrary to the prescriptions of these rules or the prohibition of this list. And if anyone should read or possess books by heretics or writings by any author condemned and prohibited by reason of heresy or suspicion of false teaching, he incurs immediately the sentence of excommunication. He, on the other hand, who reads or possesses books prohibited under another name shall, besides incurring the guilt of mortal sin, be severely punished according to the judgment of the bishops. "