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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…i have tried in vain to try to get steve to see that Jesus is God, and we have all gone above and beyond what we can prove to him. .
.

I have posed a very simple question regarding Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

It shouldn’t be viewed as unreasonable for a person to read these two scriptures and notice that Jehovah and Jesus are distinct from each other… not “The Father” distinct from “The Son”, but Jehovah and Jesus.

It’s a fair question that does not deserve to be treated like I’m an idiot for noticing it contradicts the belief that Jesus IS Jehovah God.

Instead of meaningful, scriptural discussion around this question, I’ve received data dumps of every rant possible about Russell, whether he knew Greek, whether the WTS lied about Franz’s education, whether the WTS claims to be “inspired prophets”, etc. I’ve answered each of these allegations because I’m trying to be respectful to the person who asked, and eliminate this attitude that “JW’s just run away when I ask them tough questions”.

After all that, no one has acknowledge that it does seem unusual to read Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13 while trying to believe that Jesus Christ IS Jehovah God.

It’s a valid question.

Steve
 
I am not counting time. I am simply interested in talking with others who have read the Bible and understand it to say something differently than me. I have ALWAYS had that level of interest and open mind to want to read, listen, discuss, and learn why people believe as they do.

I would never make a statement like “I will never agree to anything you say” to anyone. It is really sad to see people say this type of thing, and then say it’s me who is “brain washed”.

In having discussions here, my hope is to notice new links, new articles, new information, and new reasoning point I can use in testing my own beliefs.

It’s unfortunate that in the process of wanting to discuss the Bible with others, I have to patiently take all the verbals stabs, insults and name calling of people who just want to vent on the WTS or JW’s.

Steve
 
I have to patiently take all the verbals stabs, insults and name calling of people who just want to vent on the WTS or JW’s.

Steve
who here has called Steve names? Verbally stabbed or insulted him personally? And which former JW has gone to JW forums and sought to ‘vent on the WTS or JWs’? Has it not been that a JW has come here to our forum and challenged us in our own backyard and then cried ‘no fair’ when we have risen to those challenges and furnished proof against the WTBS and JWs? If you are going to take these things personally Steve, then why are you here again? oh yeah, to discuss the Bible. Who’s Bible? (Seems to me you would be better off in a Protestant group discussing the Bible since everyone knows Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura…)
bleh–was I that transparent when I was a JW?
Ravyn
 
.

I have posed a very simple question regarding Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

It shouldn’t be viewed as unreasonable for a person to read these two scriptures and notice that Jehovah and Jesus are distinct from each other… not “The Father” distinct from “The Son”, but Jehovah and Jesus.

It’s a fair question that does not deserve to be treated like I’m an idiot for noticing it contradicts the belief that Jesus IS Jehovah God.

Instead of meaningful, scriptural discussion around this question, I’ve received data dumps of every rant possible about Russell, whether he knew Greek, whether the WTS lied about Franz’s education, whether the WTS claims to be “inspired prophets”, etc. I’ve answered each of these allegations because I’m trying to be respectful to the person who asked, and eliminate this attitude that “JW’s just run away when I ask them tough questions”.

After all that, no one has acknowledge that it does seem unusual to read Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13 while trying to believe that Jesus Christ IS Jehovah God.

It’s a valid question.

Steve
first of all no one said Jesus is Jehovah. Jehovah is the FATHER and Jesus is the SON. The FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT are GOD. The Father and the Son are the same in that they are both at the same time God. JWs equate the Father only as God. The scriptures you are coming up with do not prove your point or disprove our point, they are irrelevant. For someone who claims to have studied the Trinity for 30 years, you do not even understand the basic definition. Three Persons in One God. No one ever said the Son was the Father. Both, with the Holy Spirit are God.
Ravyn
 
first of all no one said Jesus is Jehovah. Jehovah is the FATHER and Jesus is the SON.
Um… The very first post in this thread gave a “proof” that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God… Go read the first post.

“Jehovah God = Alpha and Omega = Beginning and End = First and Last = the Living One who “became dead” = Jesus who was crucified and resurrected.”

Many people here have been arguing against the thought that Jehovah is the Father… They insist that Jesus IS Jehovah.

I have been arguing this is not possible based on Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13

Steve
 
Steve, Steve, Steve, pleeeeeeeaassse,
enough of the whining about being persecuted already.
You, in all my years of posting here, are the only person, including the ONLY JW who has posted here, who has whined repeatedly about being mistreated. For crying out loud, discussions get HEATED sometimes. Please stop it.
It makes us lose respect for you to hear you constantly whine.
In pointing out the faults of the Watctower Society, we are not
accusing YOU of THEIR sins. Okay ??

Now, about Psalm 110, it does not say,
Jehovah said to Jesus…
is says Jehovah said to My Lord.
It is David, the highest ruler in the land, making that statement.
The only heavenly Lord that David recognized as My Lord, was God himself. That is my answer. David was uttering a mystery which the Jews to this day cannot satisfactorily explain as David was a staunch monotheist as we all are here.
Now, calling his Lord “my Lord,” instead of saying
“Jehovah said to Jehovah,” is not proof that David didn’t recognize
His Lord as also in some way being Deity. He does not say,
Jehovah said to the Archangel Michael, sit at my right hand…
If he had said that, your case would be iron-clad.

Now on to Acts 3:13, which reads (Revised Standard Version):
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him"

First of all, Peter was bearing to these people their initial witness to the power of God and Christ. (You’ll noticed I said of God and Christ, yet I believe firmly in the deity of Christ. We Christians speak like this all the time. By saying “God and Christ” we do not mean to deny that Christ is also God !! When we speak this way,we are speaking of the Father and the Son but saying
“God and Christ.” You have to understand the linguistic worldview of the people speaking.

In this verse from Acts, Peter is by no means giving a detailed explanation of the Divine Nature of Jesus. My goodness, he doesn’t even mention here that Jesus pre-existed before coming to earth. Would you see this as proof that Jesus did not pre-exist??? The people to whom Peter was speaking were people who knew of Jesus as a MAN who made many claims about himself. Peter was saying that God (the Father obviously) had glorified his Servant Jesus. Where in this statement do you find a specific denial of the Deity of the PreHuman Jesus??? The issue is not even being addressed here, so I honestly don’t see the point. By affirming that God had glorified Jesus, Peter wasn’t necessarily DENYING that Jesus shares the divine essence himself. Remember, Jesus was on earth in the FORM of a humble servant. This is a mystery, but so are a lot of things about God. Peter was simply affirming here, in these passages in Acts 3, that God Almighty was proving by miracles the Truth of Jesus’s divine mission and claims. He wasn’t discussing finer points of doctrine.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Um… The very first post in this thread gave a “proof” that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God… Go read the first post.

“Jehovah God = Alpha and Omega = Beginning and End = First and Last = the Living One who “became dead” = Jesus who was crucified and resurrected.”

Many people here have been arguing against the thought that Jehovah is the Father… They insist that Jesus IS Jehovah God.

Steve
no–you are not getting it–Jehovah GOD is the Father God when referred to this way. You could also say Jesus God or Holy Spirit God. Catholics do not generally address the Father as ‘Jehovah God’—‘God’ is all Three. If we are speaking of One of the Three we use their nomer or position. Jesus is the same God as Jehovah and the Holy Spirit. The Father and Son are Two of the Three who is God.

If someone here used the terminology ‘Jehovah God’ it was probably to use your own ‘speak’. Most Catholics would normally say God the Father. But we know that Jehovah is the Father’s name not the Son’s. But they are the same God.
Ravyn
 
Jehovah is a mistranslation. It is actually YHWH pronounced Yahweh.

Yahweh is an English reading of יהוה (the “Tetragrammaton”), the name of the God of the Jews or the people of Israel, as preserved in the original consonantal Hebrew Bible text.

In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short, the first H was pronounced as a consonant, and the final H was silent.

The four Hebrew consonants read JHWH (in German transcription) or YHWH (in English transcription). It is also common to use YHVH and JHVH.

During the Babylonian captivity, the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors, which was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had varying meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme.” When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead. During the first few centuries AD this may have resulted in loss of traditional memory of how to pronounce the Name (except among Samaritans)

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
 
Jaypeeto4;2309381 said:
**Neville Chamberlain, 1940 **
**William Branham, 1965 **
Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986
Neville Chamberlain ??? Who CARES what Neville Chamberlain believed??? QUOTE]

Yes, I don’t really care what he or others believed. And, I agree it seems odd that someone put his name on the list.

I was simply responding to a statement I felt was untrue. The argument was made implying EVERYONE who believed in Jesus from the time of Christ believed in the Trinity and then Russell magically popped on the scene. The link I provided showed this statement was not true.

It’s a very interesting read…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian

SteveLast night, I discredited your “imposing” list of 50 “scholars” who support your twisted version of John 1:1. John Crellius Fancus? Get serious…

Today, your list of non-Trinitarians is being dismantled by ex-JW’s who have been where you are and seen the way out. Neville Chamberlain? Herbert W. Armstrong? Wow…those are name the Christian community surely respect and admire. :nope:

I guess your venture into a Catholic apologetics forum hasn’t gone as well as planned, has it?

Steve, you’ve been lied to…but it’s not too late. Turn to Jesus and the only Church that He founded…turn to the Catholic faith. :tiphat:
 
Actually Ravyn, my esteemed fellow Catholic,
you are a tad mistaken here.
Jehovah or Yahweh is the name of the entire Deity, not just of the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ONE Jehovah/Yahweh. An eternal compound unity in essence and in communion.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Actually Ravyn, my esteemed fellow Catholic,
you are a tad mistaken here.
Jehovah or Yahweh is the name of the entire Deity, not just of the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ONE Jehovah/Yahweh. An eternal compound unity in essence and in communion.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
ok, I stand corrected, but I did not think Steve could grasp the concept of ‘An eternal compound unity in essence and in communion.’ --and as JWs use the name Jehovah they are only referring to the Father. I did not know how to explain it to him in his terms.
I personally do not use the name Jehovah very often—too many old references. But I do think of God as YHWH. Yod He Vau He is perfect conceptually.
Ravyn
 
Actually Ravyn, my esteemed fellow Catholic,
you are a tad mistaken here.
Jehovah or Yahweh is the name of the entire Deity, not just of the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ONE Jehovah/Yahweh. An eternal compound unity in essence and in communion.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
So, was my initial post correct or not?

I was simply trying to say that Jesus is God…not an angel, not a lesser god. I was not trying to say that Jesus is the Father…

NWTSteve has latched onto what I tacked on at the last minute…the formula. He has complete avoided discussion of the verses from Revelation that preceeded.

Why is that?
 
So, was my initial post correct or not?

I was simply trying to say that Jesus is God…not an angel, not a lesser god. I was not trying to say that Jesus is the Father…

NWTSteve has latched onto what I tacked on at the last minute…the formula. He has complete avoided discussion of the verses from Revelation that preceeded.

Why is that?
I understood it the way you meant it.
It should not be this hard to explain to someone who supposedly has studied the subject for 30 years. Steve does not want to understand it.
Ravyn
 
No, not inspired. They read the Bible to determine what is correct.

From 1981 Watchtower article:

"The “slave” is not divinely inspired but continues to search the Scriptures and carefully scrutinize world events, as well as the situation of God’s people, so as to understand the ongoing fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Because of human limitations, at times there may be an incomplete or incorrect understanding of some matter that may require correction later.

But this does not mean that the “slave” should avoid publishing a possible explanation until the final, complete understanding is available. Originally, Christ’s disciples were not aware that the Kingdom would be heavenly, but Jesus realized that they would grow in knowledge under the influence of the holy spirit and therefore did not hesitate to give them a commission to be his witnesses. (Acts 1:6-8; John 14:25, 26)

This is far different than what JW-critics are trying to claim.

Steve
A rose by any other name…

quotes-watchtower.co.uk/god_s_prophet.html
 
Now, about Psalm 110, it does not say, Jehovah said to Jesus… is says Jehovah said to My Lord.
Yes, you are correct. Jehovah said to My Lord. The natural question that arises is… who is “My Lord”?
It is David, the highest ruler in the land, making that statement.
The only heavenly Lord that David recognized as My Lord, was God himself. That is my answer.
OK, to test your idea, I did a online concordance search of the phrase “my Lord”. In the book of Psalms, the phrase occurs only once here at Psa 110. However, the personal name of God, Jehovah/Yahweh occurs 809 times. It seem that David regularly identified the person in heaven whom he worshipped by the name YHWH, not “my Lord”

Continuing along in the concordance, the phrase “my Lord” is noted to be a very common one. However, I found dozens and dozens of this phrase referring to every EXCEPT Jehovah. Thus, I don’t see any specific reason to understand David thought the person sitting next to Jehovah, the person whom he talked about regularly by using his personal name, was actually God as you say. The scripture doesn’t specify who is “My Lord”, we have to look for other specific references in the Bible.

Jesus explains it here:

(Matthew 22:41-45) Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: 42 “What do YOU think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.” 43 He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? 45 If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?”

So, the natural conclusion from this scripture is that “My Lord” is referring to Jesus. So, we have Psa 110:1-5 saying…. “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord (i.e. Jesus) is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

So we have Jehovah sitting next to Jesus talking to him.

This is as simple as any experience we have ever had in life. Peter sitting next to Paul, Mary sitting next to Susan, Jehovah sitting next to Jesus….

Will anyone at least admit this scripture is an unusual anomaly in believing Jesus IS Jehovah? There has got to be someone here can at least say, they understand why thinking Jesus IS Jehovah violates this scripture…
David was uttering a mystery which the Jews to this day cannot satisfactorily explain as David was a staunch monotheist as we all are here.
Now, calling his Lord “my Lord,” instead of saying
“Jehovah said to Jehovah,” is not proof that David didn’t recognize
His Lord as also in some way being Deity.
He does not say,
Jehovah said to the Archangel Michael, sit at my right hand…
If he had said that, your case would be iron-clad.
I am not the one to argue the WTS case for Jesus being Michael. I agree with their statement there is no concrete statement in the Bible that proves Jesus to be Michael. I understand their logic and reasoning behind the implied argument that the Bible points to Michael being Jesus, but I don’t argue points that are subjective and can’t be proved 100% by Scripture.

However, if that would be an “iron clad” argument for you what is the difference if the Scripture said Jehovah was sitting next to Michael, Paul, John, Mary, Susan? Why all of a sudden does it mean something else when it’s Jesus sitting next to Jehovah?

Certainly, you can see this scripture is a BIG anomaly in the belief that Jesus is Jehovah God, can’t you?

Steve
 
Yes, you are correct. Jehovah said to My Lord. The natural question that arises is… who is “My Lord”?

OK, to test your idea, I did a online concordance search of the phrase “my Lord”. In the book of Psalms, the phrase occurs only once here at Psa 110. However, the personal name of God, Jehovah/Yahweh occurs 809 times. It seem that David regularly identified the person in heaven whom he worshipped by the name YHWH, not “my Lord”

Continuing along in the concordance, the phrase “my Lord” is noted to be a very common one. However, I found dozens and dozens of this phrase referring to every EXCEPT Jehovah. Thus, I don’t see any specific reason to understand David thought the person sitting next to Jehovah, the person whom he talked about regularly by using his personal name, was actually God as you say. The scripture doesn’t specify who is “My Lord”, we have to look for other specific references in the Bible.

Jesus explains it here:

(Matthew 22:41-45) Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: 42 “What do YOU think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.” 43 He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? 45 If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?”

So, the natural conclusion from this scripture is that “My Lord” is referring to Jesus. So, we have Psa 110:1-5 saying…. “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord (i.e. Jesus) is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

So we have Jehovah sitting next to Jesus talking to him.

This is as simple as any experience we have ever had in life. Peter sitting next to Paul, Mary sitting next to Susan, Jehovah sitting next to Jesus….

Will anyone at least admit this scripture is an unusual anomaly in believing Jesus IS Jehovah? There has got to be someone here can at least say, they understand why thinking Jesus IS Jehovah violates this scripture…

I am not the one to argue the WTS case for Jesus being Michael. I agree with their statement there is no concrete statement in the Bible that proves Jesus to be Michael. I understand their logic and reasoning behind the implied argument that the Bible points to Michael being Jesus, but I don’t argue points that are subjective and can’t be proved 100% by Scripture.

However, if that would be an “iron clad” argument for you what is the difference if the Scripture said Jehovah was sitting next to Michael, Paul, John, Mary, Susan? Why all of a sudden does it mean something else when it’s Jesus sitting next to Jehovah?

Certainly, you can see this scripture is a BIG anomaly in the belief that Jesus is Jehovah God, can’t you?

Steve
Does anyone know why the NWT in Gen. 19:24 translates the passage there as: “Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah”?

That almost sounds to me like “Jehovah said to Jehovah.”
 
Does anyone know why the NWT in Gen. 19:24 translates the passage there as: “Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah”?

That almost sounds to me like “Jehovah said to Jehovah.”
Here’s some information from a 1982 Watchtower “Question from Readers”… I’ll look for some more info on the topic.

▪️ Genesis 19:24 speaks of ‘the Lord’ raining down sulfur and fire ‘from the Lord’ on Sodom. Does this indicate that God is a trinity?

Believers in the Trinity have tried to find support for their doctrine from the account of Abraham and Lot. But careful, frank examination shows that it no more teaches the Trinity than does the Bible as a whole.

Abraham received a visit from “three men” who clearly were from God. Greeting them, Abraham said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant.” (Genesis 18:1-3) Of course, Jehovah God himself had not appeared in the flesh to Abraham, for ‘no man may see Him and yet live.’ (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18) Hence, Abraham must have expressed himself this way because of recognizing that these “men,” and perhaps one of them in particular, represented Jehovah. This agrees with other occasions when angels of God appeared to humans and were spoken of as “Jehovah” for they were heavenly representatives of the Most High.—Compare Genesis 16:7-13; Judges 6:12-16.

After the “three men” delivered that important message involving the foretold “seed,” attention was turned to Sodom and Gomorrah. A comparison of Genesis 18:22 and 19:1 proves that the “men” who had visited Abraham were angels. While one of these representing Jehovah remained with Abraham, the other two heavenly messengers went to Sodom. There, at the mouth of two witnesses, they assured Lot and his family that destruction was coming on the cities and that flight was necessary. Once Lot and his two daughters were safe, destruction came on the wicked cities. We read: “Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah.”—Genesis 19:24.

In many older Bible translations, this verse speaks of “the Lord” raining down fire from “the Lord.” Some commentators who believed in the Trinity claimed that it meant that the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, brought destruction from the Lord God, the Father. But the Hebrew text shows that both references are to “Jehovah,” who was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and who was different from Jesus.—Exodus 6:2, 3; Acts 3:13.

It is consistent with Hebrew idiom to speak of a person’s doing something in reference to himself. We read: “Solomon proceeded to congregate the older men ... to King Solomon.” “To Moses [Jehovah] said: ‘Go up to Jehovah ... ’” “[Jehovah] went on to say: ... I will save them by Jehovah.’” (1*Kings 8:1; Exodus 24:1; Hosea 1:6, 7; Zechariah 10:12) In this same way Genesis 19:24 tells us that Jehovah brought the unprecedented sulfur and fire from himself, “from Jehovah, from the heavens.” So rather than being a strained prop for the unscriptural Trinity doctrine, this verse underscores the point made at Psalm 83:18: “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”

It might be mentioned in passing that there is another aspect of this account that ardent believers in the Trinity have attempted to use in support of their doctrine. They have stressed that there were three who appeared to Abraham and who represented God, so they suggest that a trinity is indicated.

That there were three angels, though, is hardly a valid indication of a triune deity, for nothing in this account speaks of a plural Godhead. German scholar Franz Delitzsch observed that “the idea that the Trinity is represented in the three is in every point of view untenable.”

So, why did God send three heavenly creatures representing him? The angels came to tell Abraham that he and Sarah would produce a son. (Genesis 18:10) Evidently God considered it appropriate for this prophetic message to be presented by three witnesses, even as the Law later said that “at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses [a] matter should stand good” or be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15; 1*Timothy 5:19) Abraham would have reason to doubt that he and Sarah, considering their age and physical condition, could produce a son. (Hebrews 11:11, 12) But the witness of three angels would certainly be convincing.
 
We never had witnesses in the German Democratic Republic. There were none. If there were, they were underground. The Stasi would have arrested them. although Iam in favor of freedom of speech, it makes me glad that we had no witnesses because they would have been arrested immediately if seen in public with paraphanalia. Found an article that states they would have been under observation and oppressed.

they were forbidden in the DDR in 1950. ( de.wikipedia.org )
The Stasi had moles in the organization to destroy them from within.

The criminal offense was dropped in 1967 and the distribution
was still handled as a minor crime.

I think what needs to be said is that yes, there is freedom of religion, or belief in NA here, there is not always so in other countries. that is often taken for granted. We might not agree with witnesses, but they do and can believe what they want. If we opt not to believe it is the choice of ourselves.

While I do not believe what they teach.and never have, still, one must understand that their view on Christ not being God is different than ours. The only way to help these souls out is to witness to the witness as my wife likes to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top