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

[BibleSteve]

Jehovah didn’t think very highly of these judges or “gods,” even if they were supposed to be his representatives. See Psalm 82: 5 and 7 We would certainly not equate Jesus to one of these gods, would we?

The word “God” or “god” is commonly used regarding a superhuman object of veneration. Thus, in the minds of many people, “god” means either (1)the Supreme Being, the Almighty, or (2)a false god, such as an idol. However, the Bible allows for other usage. We can see this from Psalm 82:1,2. There the Divine One (Jehovah God) is distinguished from human judges whom the psalmist terms “gods.” Jesus himself later referred to this passage. Because he had spoken of Jehovah God as being his Father, some Jews wanted to stone him. To their accusation that he was ‘making himself a god,’ Jesus responded: **“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called [those human judges] ‘gods’ ... do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son*?”—John 10:31-36.
Unquestionably there is only one Almighty God, even as the apostle Paul wrote: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, ... and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” (1*Corinthians 8:5,*6) The Lord Jesus Christ is no false god, no demon god, no mere idol. He ‘is the reflection of Jehovah God’s glory.’ (Hebrews 1:3) Thus it is fitting for John 1:1 to acknowledge Jesus as “a god,” or “godlike”, or “divine” as dozens of translations show…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m glad you are cracking yourself up.

Let’s see if your statement “you’re alone there” with regard to John 1:1 is correct or false. Will you retract that statement as incorrect, or just immediately attack all these other translators?

No. My comment should have been interpreted as follows: “You (Jehovah’s Witnesses) are alone (in the New World Translation) in translating the verse with ‘a god’.”

As for these passages below, I have no way of verifying them, so I cannot readily admit to their accuracy.

Given your previous attempt to misquote Fr. McKenzie, I must withhold judgment due to the dubious source (ie, you).

Sorry, but you did this to yourself.

However, I will address one of these below that I can personally verify below…

‘the word was a divine being.’ (Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’)

This very passage is addressed in the article found in This Rock:

The Witnesses also attack another doctrine, the divinity of Christ, using McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible. *Reasoning From the Scriptures *tries to bolster the Witnesses’ translation of John 1:1 (“the Word was a god”) with the following quotation from McKenzie’s entry on God: “John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”

The Witnesses believe John 1:1 teaches Jesus was a lesser god, but not the Almighty God. They’re willing to say Christ was (and is) a divine being, but not the supremely Divine Being. Their citation of McKenzie is an attempt to show how even a Catholic Scripture scholar admits John 1:1 teaches this.

(The Witnesses stress how McKenzie’s remarks are published with a nihil obstat and an* imprimatur* from the Archdiocese of Chicago, as if this lends official Catholic support for their rendering of John 1:1.)

While McKenzie agrees with the Witnesses that the Word, Jesus, was a divine being, he doesn’t mean by this what the Witnesses mean. McKenzie is actually affirming the divinity of Christ. After explaining why the New Testament doesn’t usually refer to Christ as God, he writes:

“This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.’ Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28). ‘The glory of our great God and Savior’ which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tit. 2:13)” (Dictionary of the Bible, 317).

Mckenzie concludes his comments on God and Christ by noting, “In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the Old Testament” (Dictionary of the Bible, 318).

McKenzie points to a number of texts where Christ is called God as evidence of Jesus’ divinity. In no way is he saying Jesus is a lesser god. This conclusion is underscored when we remember McKenzie’s observation that the New Testament doesn’t place the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit above or below one another on the divine level of being.

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp

Now, I will reiterate that you have discredited yourself twice by misrepresenting the belief of Fr. McKenzie. Consequently, I have little reason to believe that you have not done so with these other quotes.

You will cry “foul” of course, but unless you can provide references (ie, links) to your “theologians” and the works you quote, I will have to set them aside as unverifiable.

I hope you would hold us to the same rigorous standard. :tiphat:

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Men are called gods, Satan was called a god… it is simply a descriptive title that fits many different people…

Steve, do you honestly think that we Catholics have never heard this before? Do you think we are THAT uninformed?
It is true that people were called gods in the sense that they stood in the place of God Almighty as judges.
It is also true that Satan is the “god of this world.”

But that does not mean that those people, or Satan,
truly possess the nature of Deity.
Jesus does.

I think what confuses BibleSteve is how can we say there are three persons who are God, yet only one God ??
He is looking at this in a kind of “mathematical” numerical sense, and that’s not how we look at it. So we are using the same words, but each side has a different meaning.

Let me use an analogy from nature to explain what we Catholics believe about God being a Trinity, a compound unity of three “persons” (the best term available) who share one Divine Nature and are the One God Yahweh (Jehovah).
And no, I’m not going to use the three leafed clover, because I don’t think that really gets the point across very well.

Steve, imagine for a moment that you were doing a complete makeover of your backyard, and the big Oak Tree in the middle of it had to be uprooted and removed. So you hire a team, and they come in and uproot the Oak Tree. While you are waiting for the tree haulers to come and haul away the tree, you stop and look closely at the tree.
You are looking at only one tree, ONE tree only, and yet you notice something you never paid any attention to before.
You see a HUGE Root. Growing out of the root is an enormus
TRUNK. And growing out of the trunk (and by extension out of the root, too) are BRANCHES.

You are seeing three things, and each of them are fully
of the essence of TREE. Their nature is TREE-nature, not the nature of a rosebush or the nature of a flower, or of the nature of a plant. No, each of the things you are seeing is fully of the nature of the tree, yet they are not the same thing. They are distinct from each other. NOT “separate” for they are totally connected with each other, yet truly distinct things and one is not the other.

1. The Root is fully of the nature or essence of TREE.
2. The Trunk is fully of the nature or essence of TREE.
3. The Branches are fully of the essence of Tree.
   The Root is not the Trunk, and the Trunk is not the Branches,
   yet if it weren’t for the root, there would be no trunk. If it weren’t for the both the root and the trunk, there would be no branches.
   Ultimately, the trunk and the branches live because of the Root.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

[Jaypeeto4]

CONTINUED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST

It is the same way with the Trinity, the Triune God.
The Father is the Root. From the Root there grows the Trunk which lives because of the Root. This is God’s Eternal Word, the
“only begotten Son” which proceeds from the Father (the root) and would not exist if the Father did not exist.
And then there are the branches, which ultimately come from the root even though you usually see them on the trunk. This is the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father through the Son and exists ONLY because the Father exists.
Just as you are only looking at one thing with the essence of TREE when you are looking at the Root, the Trunk, and the Branch, so it is with the Holy Trinity. The Father is NOT the Son (Jesus was NOT “praying to himself” in the Garden) but the Son exists only because the Father generates him (monogenes = only generated Son in Greek) and the Holy Spirit is from the Father thru the Son and only exists because of the love of the Father and the Son.

God by nature, the Deity, has no “form” or “body.”
That is why the Father cannot be seen. Even Jesus, in his Divine nature cannot be seen. But Jesus wedded his Divine Nature to our human nature in the womb of the virgin Mary. In so doing, without losing one bit of his Deity, he appeared to us in the form of a Man born of Mary. He looked and acted like any normal human being (except at the Transfiguration when the apostles were stunned by a manifestation of some of his Glory). As a Man, Jesus relied exclusively on the Father for his powers for he had laid aside his manifest glory by condescending to be born as a man for OUR SALVATION. This is why of Jesus, in this humble human state, it is said,
Evem though he existed in the form of God, yet he did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but rather being found in human form as a man, he humbled himself, even to death on a cross. That is why God has highly exalted him (as a man), giving him (as a man) the name which is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord!! to the glory of God the Father.

To recap: God the Father has always existed and has always been a God of Love. Love has an object, and God is not a narcissist. God the Father, from ALL eternity, has always generated (monogenes), of his own Deity Nature, his Wprd and the fruitful love of the Father and the Word (or son) breathes forth the intelligent Holy Spirit who in return pours back his love for the Father and the Son into the Father and the Son and so on and so on from all eternity. God is ONE and only ONE Divine Essence, but this Divine Essence is a compound unity, like our Tree, and from all eternity, because of the love and eternal Fatherhood of God. Eternal PAST and Eternal FUTURE. This is why Jesus could say to the Jews, Before Abraham ever came into existence,
EGO EIMI !! ( literally I, I, I AM) which is the same as saying I am absolutely timeless. That’s why the Jews wanted to stone him. They understood what he said and didn’t believe it.

I hope this helps in explaining what we believe.
We do NOT believe in three Gods.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Randy_Carson]

BTW - I found your exact same list of quotes on another forum:

theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-20207.html

I guess this is one of those documents JW’s keep on hand for just such an occasion…

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

I’m sorry, I thought you had made the statement the NWT was alone in translating John 1:1 differently.

You can see is certainly isn’t.

Are you now changing the question to which way is translated more often?

Steve

Don’t think I made that statement. I’m still interested in finding out how many translations state “the Word was God.” That’s o.k. I’ll do my own research. Thought you might have it handy.

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

The word “God” or “god” is commonly used regarding a superhuman object of veneration. Thus, in the minds of many people, “god” means either (1)the Supreme Being, the Almighty, or (2)a false god, such as an idol. However, the Bible allows for other usage. We can see this from Psalm 82:1,2. There the Divine One (Jehovah God) is distinguished from human judges whom the psalmist terms “gods.” Jesus himself later referred to this passage. Because he had spoken of Jehovah God as being his Father, some Jews wanted to stone him. To their accusation that he was ‘making himself a god,’ Jesus responded: **“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called [those human judges] ‘gods’ ... do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son*?”—John 10:31-36.
Unquestionably there is only one Almighty God, even as the apostle Paul wrote: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, ... and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” (1*Corinthians 8:5,*6) The Lord Jesus Christ is no false god, no demon god, no mere idol. He ‘is the reflection of Jehovah God’s glory.’ (Hebrews 1:3) Thus it is fitting for John 1:1 to acknowledge Jesus as “a god,” or “godlike”, or “divine” as dozens of translations show…

Is that passage in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 supposed to make Paul a henotheist? Or is he a monotheist?

It is more fitting that John 1:1 which began by telling us that the Word was God ends with Jesus being called “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28

 

[TraditionalCath]

biblesteve,

I think you need to read up on what Catholics believe about the Trinity. Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord, and my God. If Jesus were not God, He would’ve rebuked Thomas for making a claim that was not true. He did not rebuke him did he? No. Why? Because He is God. Also, Christ also states that He would raise Himself up under His own power did He not? Yes, He did. If He was not God He could not make such a statement could He? No.

What we believe about the Trinity:

catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp

 

[BibleSteve]

Don’t think I made that statement. I’m still interested in finding out how many translations state “the Word was God.” That’s o.k. I’ll do my own research. Thought you might have it handy.

You are right, it was Randy in post #59. My apologies to you.

I would expect the majority of translations would read as the Catholic church insisted they should under the death penalty. 1300’s years of that type of pressure gets the point across to anyone who sees things differently.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Also, Christ also states that He would raise Himself up under His own power did He not? Yes, He did.

You’re absolutely right he did.
He said to the people,
“Destroy this temple,
and in three days, “I” (not, my father) will raise it up.”

And he was speaking of the Temple of HIS OWN BODY.

Those who don’t understand the Trinity, the reality of it,
dismiss this verse and focus on the fact that other scriptures say that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. And others that say that Jesus was made alive by the Spirit.
The reality, of course, is that the Father raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus exerted his own divine power and raised his own body from the dead, and the Holy Spirit was also active in the resurrection of Jesus’s body from the dead.
Jesus said, while in his humble human state, that
the Father has given the Son the power to have LIFE IN HIMSELF.
That means that even as a man, Jesus possessed literal eternal life because of his divine nature which he received from The Father when the Father begot him from his own Nature from all eternity past. Jesus is God.

 

[BibleSteve]

Regarding the open question about “Alpha and Omega” & “First and Last” title matching…

Jehovah and Jesus share titles, although there are subtle differences. Alpha and Omega, the Greek equivalent to saying A-to-Z in English, is a descriptive title that Jehovah and Jesus may share, but for different reasons. Jehovah is the ultimate First and Last, in that he is the only person in existence that had no beginning. And, he alone innately possesses immortality and life in himself. No one gave Jehovah life, but he gives life to all others, including his firstborn and only-begotten Son.

As the firstborn Son of all Creation, Jesus is unique among all of God’s sons, in that he was the first and only creature directly created by Jehovah. All [others] were created through the Son. That is why, in fact, that Jesus is called the only-begotten Son of God. Jesus is also the first creature raised from the dead to immortality. That’s why the Bible calls him the “firstborn from the dead.” At Colossians 1:18, Paul said of Christ: “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things.” The next verse goes on to show that it pleased God to make his son first in all things.

Jesus is “last” in the sense that he will never be surpassed in glory by any fellow creature. He will always be the closest to Jehovah.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I would expect the majority of translations would read as the Catholic church insisted they should under the death penalty. 1300’s years of that type of pressure gets the point across to anyone who sees things differently.

This statement is a libellous crock of pure, unadulterated
B_LLSH_T, and any educated Catholic knows it.
The Catholic Church herself never executed ANYONE. The state did. And this did not begin happening until the late, late middle ages, and only in cases of extreme activist malicious heresy.
The church never, ever, ever, micro-managed the translations of the Holy Scriptures. The scholars, who were all peaceful monks, translated them according to the best Greek and Latin manuscripts available.

Anyone who would flippantly make a statement like the one bolded above is showing himself to be a bombastic ignoramus who shouldn’t even be taken seriously. Catholics, stand up and defend your Holy Church against evil false charges like the one above. This is DISGRACEFUL.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[BibleSteve]

biblesteve,

I think you need to read up on what Catholics believe about the Trinity. Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord, and my God. If Jesus were not God, He would’ve rebuked Thomas for making a claim that was not true. He did not rebuke him did he? No. Why? Because He is God. Also, Christ also states that He would raise Himself up under His own power did He not? Yes, He did. If He was not God He could not make such a statement could He? No.

What we believe about the Trinity:

catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp

No doubt the reason Jesus did not correct Thomas is because Jesus did not understand Thomas to mean what you suppose he meant. A few verses down, it says: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.”

Obviously, when the apostle John wrote down the account years later, he was not in confusion either. The apostles recognized Jesus as the Son of God. They were under no Trinitarian delusion back then. However, many modern readers see the expression “Son of God,” and their minds, after years of being conditioned by Trinitarian theology, reflexively transpose that expression into “God the Son.”

It is interesting that Jesus used the same Greek expression as Thomas did when he said with his last dying breath: “The God of me, the God of me, with what left you down in me”? (Translated: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) The question is: If Thomas was referring to Jesus when he said “The God of me,” who was Jesus referring to as his God?

The reasonable explanation is that Thomas, overwhelmed by his astonishment at the reality of Christ’s resurrection, which he had previously denied, was moved to make a declaration to reaffirm that he recognized Jesus as his Lord and representative of Jehovah God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Steve-

Here on the desk before me I have:

1. A copy of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (hardbound 1984 ed. - I mention this in case there have been any changes since then).
2. A bright red hardbound copy of Live Forever.
3. Witnesses of Jehovah by Leonard & Marjorie Chretien
4. Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
5. My speedy Internet connection fired up and ready for research.

I’m asking myself if I really want to immerse myself in the twisted world of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (again).

I think not.

I am a Catholic, and a convert to Catholicism of nearly 30 years. I am happy chatting about indulgences, the Crusades or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary with folks who share a common history and a common New Testament with me, but I am ill-prepared to enter the world of the cultist who sees nothing wrong with altering the Word of God as needed to suit his own belief system.

I’m sure there are former JW’s frequenting this site who can more ably help you out of the maze in which you are currently lost. I hope they will reach out to you and that you, in turn, will listen.

Good luck on the journey. :tiphat:

 

[BibleSteve]

I would expect the majority of translations would read as the Catholic church insisted they should under the death penalty. 1300’s years of that type of pressure gets the point across to anyone who sees things differently.

This statement is a libellous crock of pure, unadulterated
B_LLSH_T, and any educated Catholic knows it.
The Catholic Church herself never executed ANYONE. The state did. And this did not begin happening until the late, late middle ages, and only in cases of extreme activist malicious heresy.
The church never, ever, ever, micro-managed the translations of the Holy Scriptures. The scholars, who were all peaceful monks, translated them according to the best Greek and Latin manuscripts available.

Anyone who would flippantly make a statement like the one bolded above is showing himself to be a bombastic ignoramus who shouldn’t even be taken seriously. Catholics, stand up and defend your Holy Church against evil false charges like the one above. This is DISGRACEFUL.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

If this statement is incorrect, I will apologize and take it back. Please provide links, etc. and I will gladly read them.

Steve

 

[BibleSteve]

Steve-

…but I am ill-prepared to enter the world of the cultist who sees nothing wrong with altering the Word of God as needed to suit his own belief system.
Good luck on the journey. :tiphat:

I understand your apprehension to continue the point you raised about the NWT. That list of 50 non-JW translations usually resolves any incorrect ideas that the NWT is “alone” in translating John 1:1 as it does.

Steve

 

[Jaypeeto4]

TO THE MODERATORS:

I would like to apologize for using a masked but potentially offensive word in Post #92 above.

I have been trying to edit the post to remove the word and
replace it with the word GARBAGE, but the EDIT feature
is unavailable to me.

Please edit post #92 above, and change B_LLSH_T to
GARBAGE.

I cannot stand it when someone deliberately LIBELS
the Bride of Christ. JWs would not put up with us coming onto their forums and abusing them. Why are we putting up with them doing it to us, and more importantly, their repeatedly and maliciously libeling our church and our bible translators, accusing them of deliberately falsifying the scriptures.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[TraditionalCath]

BibleSteve;,

No, your wrong. did you look at the link i gave you? Not.likely. especially if your a witness. now, getting back to what Thomas said, he declared Christ as God, and he would not have said it had it not been true. Christ never rebuked him for it either. Why would He being that He is God?

Had He not been God, He would’ve rebuked him flat out. He would never ever let anyone call Him God if He was not God at all. your so called “representative of God” is not what Thomas recognized Him as. Thomas clearly recognized Jesus as God, and rightfully so because He is God.

Also note, that Jesus is not Micheal the Archangel either. He has the power to rebuke Satan where as Micheal does not. Christ can forgive sins and raise the dead. Micheal cannot. Read Jude, recall please, where Micheal would not rebuke the devil. Had he been Jesus, he would’ve rebuked the devil correct? Correct.

Jesus also stated as I said earlier in my post that He would raise Himself up under His own power. He could not raise Himself up under His own power if He was not God. period. Nor would He even say something like that if He was not God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I understand your apprehension to continue the point you raised about the NWT. That list of 50 non-JW translations usually resolves any incorrect ideas that the NWT is “alone” in translating John 1:1 as it does.

Steve

Sorry. That was not as intimidating as you had hoped. I have already addressed the McKenzie misquote…

It’s the poor use of my time that I object to…no offense, but your quirky religion is of no interest to me.

Just as one example, I typed the following into Google:

“a God/god was the Logos/logos” (Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979)

This is a cut and paste on one of your quotes. Do you know how many hits I got? Five. That’s right, five hits out of billions of pages avaiable on the web.

One of them was a site defending Mormonism and citing Jurgen Becker’s translation - the same as you!

Two were obviously JW threads and the other two were in a foreign language but appeared to be similar to the three in English.

It seems that Mr. Becker has not had much exposure to the Internet. Is he a real person? Who knows?

Like I said, I have no interest in chasing down obscure quotes from no-name scholars who are championed only by JW’s and Mormons.

 

[BibleSteve]

TO THE MODERATORS:
Why are we putting up with them doing it to us, and more importantly, their repeatedly and maliciously libeling our church and our bible translators, accusing them of deliberately falsifying the scriptures.
QUOTE]

I came here to specifically anwers questions raised about JW’s understanding of the Trinity. Along the way, I’ve been called a cult member, decieved by Satan, hopeless lost, naive, etc. and even insulted that we’ve changed the scriptures to meet our belief systems.

Throughout all of this, I’ve provided Bible quotes from a variety of Christian translation without returning any of these types of insults. I’ve provided sound reasonings from the scriptures.

By far, the insults have been coming towards me and not the reverse.

Based on my current understanding, I mentioned the Church had previously had a policy of capital punishment, specifically the denial of the Trinity. I believe that to be true, but I’m open to have that opinion corrected.

I asked previously what would happen if a peaceful person simply denied the Trinity and was told if he persisted in this belief and shared it with others, he would be executed.

The next logical question is what would happen to a Bible Translator who chose to translate John 1:1 differently.

I enjoy talking with others of different understandings, and sitting here enduring all this type of insulting name calling is no picnic.

So, if you want to thrown insults at me and then complain when I mention Church history… then I will be glad to move on and talk to other people…

Steve