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

[BibleSteve]

“I AM” are the same words that God used when he told Moses who he was in Exodus

The argument that just because Jesus said “I am” thus he must be Jehovah God is very weak. Come on, have you ever looked at other translations, or looked through the Bible to see if anyone else ever said “I am”? Wouldn’t that be the logical thing to do before jumping to a conclusion?

The Apostle Paul said “I am”…

(1 Corinthians 15:10) But by God’s undeserved kindness I am what I am. And his undeserved kindness that was toward me did not prove to be in vain, but I labored in excess of them all, yet not I but the undeserved kindness of God that is with me.

Let’s see how other Bible Translators understand John 8:58

Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”

Note other translations:

Chas. Williams’ The New Testament: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’”

A. S. Lewis’ “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest: “He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.”

The Twentieth Century New Testament: “‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’”

G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament: “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.”

Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament: “Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.”

F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, **I was already there **[war ich schon da]!’”

C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: **Before Abraham was born, I was **[war ich].’”

Nácar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish): “Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’”

It seems to me that Trinitarians have read far too much into John 8:58. trying to prove a belief that isn’t there.

Jesus was simply saying that he existed before Abraham. He wasn’t talking about being Jehovah. That is clearly seen by Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

Steve

 

[BibleSteve]

I can’t help noticing you have not responded to my post about McKenzie now that you have been caught red-handed quoting him out of context…

The quote was accurate. I never said McKenzie wasn’t a Trinitarian. I was simply pointing out something he said.

Steve

 

[BibleSteve]

. The Father is DISTINCT from the Son)

I agree, the Father is distinct from the Son.

Jehovah is also distinct from the Jesus (Psa 110:1-5; Acts 3:13)

The Bible is clear that Jesus is not Jehovah. Some want to try to prove he is by title matching… but Psa 110 and Acts 3 are not ambiguous at all.

Steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

The quote was accurate. I never said McKenzie wasn’t a Trinitarian. I was simply pointing out something he said.

Steve

You took him out of context. Look, you wrote the following:

Over whelming evidence for the Trinity? Not really.

I do see a few scriptures that are somewhat ambiguous and hard to understand that have lead to some confusion. I can understand the confusion for some people.

But, saying the evidence of the Trinity is overwhelming is really stretching it beyond reasonability.

Several other sources would agree with me also:

Then you proceeded to take McKenzie and others out of context according to the pattern given by the The Watchtower.

I understand that you are just parroting the anti-Catholic rhetoric put out by your “church”, but this has been answered and refuted and you were caught using an old “playbook”.

You need some new material…we’re not falling for this old trick again.

 

[BibleSteve]

You took him out of context. Look, you wrote the following:
/

The easiest thing for a person to say in any discussion is “You took that out of context”.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The Bible is clear that Jesus is not Jehovah. Some want to try to prove he is by title matching… but Psa 110 and Acts 3 are not ambiguous at all.

It is time to be frank.
The Bible, CORRECTLY INTERPRETED by COMPETENT spiritual authority, CLEARLY teaches that Jesus IS Jehovah God.
The leaders of the Watchtower Society, from whom you get your entire (mis)understanding of Scripture, have no authority from God whatsoever. They are false prophets and this is easily and repeatedly verifiable. As false prophets, they are under the curse of the Lord until and unless they humbly repent of their arrogant SELF-PROCLAIMED claim to be God’s Sole Channel of Communication to Mankind Today.

Moreover, the members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however sincere they may be in their beliefs (and I freely acknowledge that most of them are absolutely sincere), are unable to see the truth of the full deity of Christ in scripture because the Spirit of Satan the Devil, which is the deceptive spirit behind the Watchtower Society and all other antiTrinitarian movements, has blinded their minds to the truth.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses need our fervent prayers for their conversion, because they are on the path leading to spiritual
destruction. Folks, please pray for them that God will rescue them from the hands of Satan, who has taken them captive so as to work in opposition to His revealed Truth and Gospel.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Jaypeeto4]

If I had this opinion at the time of Athanasius, he’d have beaten me up and thrown me out of town. If I had this opinion from 325 through the late 1600’s, I’d have burned at the stake.

It is time to dispel forever the myth of the peaceful, oppressed followers of Arius. You couldn’t be MORE WRONG about this.
Mobs of Arians rampaged through Alexandria, seizing Churches by force, beating the living hell out of the Catholic priests,
stripping them of their clothes and forcing them to run naked through the streets while pummeling them with rocks. Many of the laity were also beaten to a pulp by the crazed Arian mobs.
This is historically verifiable. I have studied this matter thoroughly.
The Arians were violent, sacrilegious fanatics. If Athanasius responded in kind, it was because it was necessary because the Arian mobs STARTED the violence, and that too is historically verifiable. And they did this in many cities of the empire, especially seizing Episcopal Sees and driving out the orthodox
Catholic Bishops (overseers) from their Sees (headquarters of oversight).

And you should know how Arius died. It wasn’t pretty.
He BURST OPEN IN THE MIDDLE and all his bowels gushed out.
Nobody killed the sacrilegious nitwit, it was an Act of God,
to which his companions bore witness.

 

[BibleSteve]

The Bible is clear that Jesus is not Jehovah. Some want to try to prove he is by title matching… but Psa 110 and Acts 3 are not ambiguous at all.

It is time to be frank.

snip - all sorts of anti-JW diatribe

I read Psa 110;1-5 and Acts 3:13 long before I became a JW. It’s obvious that Jehovah and Jesus are distinct. It doesn’t take a theological degree, or any fancy interpretation.

Any other sentence, in any language, at any time in history that said “The utterance of Peter to Mary is…” would easily be understood to mean there Peter is distinct from Mary…"

It’s only here when it says “The utterance of Jehovah to My Lord *… that all the hand waving comes out trying to prove that Jesus really is Jehovah…”

Note the scripture doesn’t say: “God the Father” to “God the Son”, or “Father to Son”, it says "Jehovah to my Lord *)

Because the position can’t be defended by means of scripture, or any level of common logical sense, out comes the diatribe… calling the other person Satanic, or influenced by Satan.

Jesus alert us to watch for this type of defense:

(Matthew 10:24-25) “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his lord. 25*It is enough for the disciple to become as his teacher, and the slave as his lord. If people have called the householder Be·el′ze·bub, how much more [will they call] those of his household so?

They called Jesus Satanic.

Refusing to comment on a basic, logical, and very reasonable question and immediately jumping to diatribe is a weak approach.

(1 Peter 3:15) But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.**

 

[BibleSteve]

If I had this opinion at the time of Athanasius, he’d have beaten me up and thrown me out of town. If I had this opinion from 325 through the late 1600’s, I’d have burned at the stake.

It is time to dispel forever the myth of the peaceful, oppressed followers of Arius. .

What would happen to a peaceful person, who simply didn’t believe in the Trinity from 325 BC until the late 1800’s.? Why did Isaac Newton hide his view the Trinity was false?

Steve

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I did not “immediately” jump into any sort of diatribe whatsoever.
I have responded calmly and respectfully to many of your posts because I believe you are sincere. Stubborn, but sincere.

Yes, in Psalm 110, scripture reads,
Yahweh said to My Lord, sit at my right hand…

That doesn’t mean that The Word and the Father do not share the same Divine Nature.

First of all, David said, “Jehovah said to my Lord…”
David was a monotheistic Jew and knew nothing about a future
man named Jesus of Nazareth. **He recognized NOBODY as Lord except Jehovah God himself. ** You will never find David in scripture acknowledging ANYONE as his Lord other than God Almighty, and certainly not the Archangel Michael.
What he said was a spirit-inspired hint to the Jewish people that their Lord, who is also in some way of the same divine ESSENCE as the Father, would sit at the Father’s right hand as ruler.
The Jews, many of them, do not recognize this Witness, and unfortunately, neither do the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the other antiTrinitarian sects.

Jesus asked the people, how can the Messiah be David’s son if David himself, speaking by the Spirit, called him “Lord?”
Jesus was speaking to people who almost always used the term Lord to refer to Jehovah. Jesus was gradually unfolding to them who He actually was and is. And scripture says that they dared not ask him any question after that, so thoroughly stumped were they by Jesus’s question. And why does scripture never, ever say, not even once, that Jesus is the Archangel Michael?
But several times in scripture Jesus is called GOD and the I AM.
Never once does scripture assert that Jesus is an Archangel.

And please, knock off the whining about being persecuted by an
“anti-JW diatribe.” You know very well that your JW literature ferociously insults, mocks, and degrades EVERY OTHER RELIGION BUT YOUR OWN, calling US demon-inspired, our doctirnes demon-inspired, our religious leaders as all just a bunch of greedy Babylonish whores, etc., etc., etc, and you know that.

As a JW, you help distribute that malicious, slanderous, libellous literature. And if you personally conduct any “free home bible studies” you personally teach your “study student” those same malicious things.

Moral of the story?
If you can’t TAKE it, don’t be a member of a group
which CONSTANTLY DISHES IT OUT.

Anti-JW diatribe, my foot. Grow up and be a man.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

What would happen to a peaceful person, who simply didn’t believe in the Trinity from 325 BC until the late 1800’s.? Why did Isaac Newton hide his view the Trinity was false?

Well, if you were a MEMBER of the Catholic church and later adopted that belief, and tried to spread it, you would have been counselled trying to correct your error. If you refused prayerful counsel, you would have then been warned to NOT spread that doctrine among the people because it is heresy. If you defiantly kept spreading it and began denouncing the historic Christian faith, you would have then been excommunicated. If you had still persisted, depending on what Country you lived in, you might have been arrested. Heresy was considered a cause of spiritual death and you would have been regarded as a person who was persistently spreading teachings which could cause the spiritual death of many souls. If in jail (in the countries that did arrest unrepentant heretics) you persisted in your defiance despite repeated attempts at correction, the Magistrate may have sentenced you to death. Your body would have been executed and burned at the stake or exposed by hanging to show
the deadly danger of defiant unrepentant heretics to the souls of the Flock.

 

[BibleSteve]

Yes, in Psalm 110, scripture reads,
Yahweh said to My Lord, sit at my right hand…
That doesn’t mean that The Word and the Father do not share the same Divine Nature.

The scripture isn’t saying anything about “Divine Nature”, it’s just distinguishing between Jehovah talking to Jesus.

First of all, David said, “Jehovah said to my Lord…”
David was a monotheistic Jew and knew nothing about a future
man named Jesus of Nazareth. **He recognized NOBODY as Lord except Jehovah God himself. ** You will never find David in scripture acknowledging ANYONE as his Lord other than God Almighty….

Your point here is false. Why make such statements that are so easily found in scripture?

(1 Samuel 24:8) So David rose up afterward and went out from the cave and called out after Saul, saying: “My lord the king!” At this Saul looked behind him, and David proceeded to bow low with his face to the earth and prostrate himself.

What he said was a spirit-inspired hint to the Jewish people that their Lord, who is also in some way of the same divine ESSENCE as the Father, would sit at the Father’s right hand as ruler.

You’re inserting opinion into the scripture… it simply says Jehovah is talking to Jesus. Nothing about Essence, nothing about “Father”…. David wrote that Psalm when God’s personal name Jehovah/Yahweh was in full use and wasn’t obscured by Jewish superstition. Jehovah/Yahweh had not been replaced with the word LORD at the time of that writing

The scriptures simply says Jehovah was talking with Jesus.

Steve

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I agree, the Father is distinct from the Son.

Jehovah is also distinct from the Jesus (Psa 110:1-5; Acts 3:13)

The Bible is clear that Jesus is not Jehovah. Some want to try to prove he is by title matching… but Psa 110 and Acts 3 are not ambiguous at all.

Steve

Are you going to look at the rest of Scripture to get an idea or not? You appear to blow off every post I make, and the way you have talked indicates you dont understand the Trinity.

Those passages provide no problem once you understand the Trinity properly. Also check out all of Hebrews 1, take note of verses 8 (Ps 45:6), 10 (Ps 102:25) and 13 (Ps110:1).

 

[BibleSteve]

Until you realize that the SON, Jesus, HUMBLED himself and took on a human nature (without abandoning His divine nature) and TOOK on a SERVANTS role…you will not understand the Trinity NOR those passages you keep pointing to. The Father is DISTINCT from the Son.

Dear Catholic Dude,

I’m sorry you feel I didn’t address your points. I’ve gone back and re-read your post carefully.

I complete understand and agree that the “Father” is distinct from “The Son”.

I also see that “Jehovah” is distinct from Jesus as Psa 110:1-5 shows. (And Acts 3:13).

And yet, everyone wants to insist Jesus IS Jehovah. I just don’t get it.

If Jehovah and Jesus are distinct, what would that scripture have to say for you to understand this point?

Isn’t “Jehovah said to Jesus” or “Jehovah glorified his servant Jesus” enough to get the point across?

Steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”

27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you maya] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Tell me, Steve, why did Thomas call Jesus “Lord” and “God”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jehovah or Yahweh?

Is “Jehovah” the correct translation of God’s name? Let’s consider what a variety of resources have to say about this rendering.

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: “Jehovah” – False reading of the Hebrew YAHWEH.(8)

Encyclopedia Americana: “Jehovah” – erroneous form of the name of the God of Israel.(9)

Encyclopedia Britannica: The Masoretes who from the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah came into being.(10)

The Jewish Encyclopedia: “Jehovah” – a mispronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of God. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible.(11)

The New Jewish Encyclopedia: It is clear that the word Jehovah is an artificial composite.(12)

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, p. 680, vol. 7, “the true pronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH was never lost. The name was pronounced Yahweh. It was regularly pronounced this way at least until 586 B.C., as is clear from the Lachish Letters written shortly before this date.”

Therefore, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to insist “Jehovah” is the true name of God and that one is saved only if he calls on that name, is an error.

 

[BibleSteve]

Those passages provide no problem once you understand the Trinity properly. Also check out all of Hebrews 1, take note of verses 8 (Ps 45:6), 10 (Ps 102:25) and 13 (Ps110:1).

Dear Catholic Dude (nice name by the way!).

You’ve brought up Heb 1:8 as a proof that Jesus is God. Have you compared this scripture against other translations? By doing so, you will see there is translational ambiguity, with disagreement between translators. Since I have a large library of 50+ translations, I’ve noticed something interesting…

Some read “Thy throne, O God….” While others read “God is your throne….”

Here’s some detail:

The Revised Standard reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.)

However, other translations ( such as AT, Mo, TC)) reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’”
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God.
Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the•os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the•os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that ’Elo•him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the•os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

My conclusion is there is ample reason to question which translation is correct. That is why I look at scriptures that are not ambiguous or in translational dispute amongst experts, like Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, other translations ( such as AT, Mo, TC))

I do not recognize these abbreviations…please provide the full names of each version.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

RSV-CE
8: But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.

NAB
but of the Son: "Your throne, O God, 4 stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.

Douay-Rheims
But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

NIV
8But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

NASB
8But of the Son He says,
"(A)YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF a]HIS KINGDOM.

KJV
8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

NKJV
8 But to the Son *He says: *“ Your throne, O God, is *forever and ever; *A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

I think I’m good…btw, shall we do a similar comparison of respected translations to see how many render John 1:1 as:

" 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."

I think you’re alone there…

 

[BibleSteve]

Jehovah or Yahweh?
Therefore, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to insist “Jehovah” is the true name of God and that one is saved only if he calls on that name, is an error.

If you prefer Yahweh vs. Jehovah, then please go ahead and use his name. He appreciates those who are concerned with his name, keeping them in a special book of rememberance (Mal 3:16)

I find the criticism of “Jehovah” to be inconsistent though… They say “Jehovah” is so incorrect… so wrong.

However, do any of these “Jehovah” critics complain about all the other Bible names that are derivatives of “Jehovah”? No, all the names like Jeho-xxxx are never disputed. Nor is the name Jesus disputed… even though no one called him by that exact pronunciation, did they?

Personal names in human languages are often changed slightly from language to language. Robert becomes Roberto, Steve becomes Estaben, etc.

Should all these names be thrown out and changed to Yah…xxx ?

Jeho-addah
Jeho-addan
Jeho-addin
Jeho-ahaz
Jeho-hanan
Jeho-iachin
Jeho-iada
Jeho-iakim
Jeho-nadab
Jeho-nathan
Jeho-ram
Jeho-shabeath
Jeho-shama
Jeho-shaphat
Jeho-sheba
Jeho-shua
Jeho-shuah