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

[Bishopite]

**

BibleSteve:
I brought up Athanasius because I thought it is interesting to read about the early history of the Church. Since there is an Athanasian Creed, why not read up on the fellow? The guy seemed like a bully, he is described as running a “mafia” like organization that used violence and murder to get his way.
**

Your preconcieved idea of the Catholic church leads you to think that Athanasius was a bully and ran an organization using violence and murder, but that’s not the facts. Athanasius was, as I said prior, in the minority as a Trinitarian.
I find it very pecular that the minority Christian orthodox position came out on top; this gives evidence of Jesus guiding the Catholic church even in times of turmoil, so that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail. (Mt 16:15-19).

Now, I don’t know if this is true… Can you point me to any links that indicate his behavior was more in line with what Jesus said about “loving your enemies”?

Steve

Don’t you believe that showing the truth to another person is an act of love?
Here is an article that as far as I know is not Catholic, but shows that he was accused of wrong doings by the heterodox just because he held to Christian orthodoxy.

Athanasius, Saint

“(thn´zhs) (KEY) , c.297–373, patriarch of Alexandria (328–73), Doctor of the Church, great champion of orthodoxy during the Arian crisis of the 4th cent. (see Arianism). In his youth, as secretary to Bishop Alexander, he took part in the christological debate against Arius at the Council of Nicaea (see Nicaea, First Council of), and thereafter became chief protagonist for Nicene orthodoxy in the long struggle for its acceptance in the East. He defended the homoousion formula that states that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, against the various Arian parties who held that Jesus was not identical in substance with the Father. Made bishop of Alexandria upon the death of his superior, he faced a conspiracy led by Eusebius of Nicomedia to return the condemned Arius to Egypt. When Athanasius refused to yield, a pro-Arian council held at Tyre (335) found him guilty of sacrilege, the practice of magic, dishonest grain dealings, and even murder. Athanasius appealed to Constantine who demanded a retrial, then unaccountably ordered Athanasius into exile—the first of five. Reinstated (337) and exiled again (339), he fled to the West where, under Pope Julius I, the Council of Sardica vindicated him (343). To placate his Catholic brother Constans, the Arian Constantius permitted Athanasius to return to his see in 346. There he reigned, a beloved pastor, for ten fruitful years, strengthening orthodoxy in Egypt and composing some of his greatest works, including his Defense Against the Arians (348). When Constans died, Constantius procured the condemnation of Athanasius (Arles, 357), again forcing him into exile. It was during this period of hiding with the hermit monks of the Egyptian desert, whom he admired greatly, that he wrote his best exposition of Nicene christology, Discourses Against the Arians, attacking both the Arians and the views of Marcellus of Ancyra. By now a conservative reaction in the East issued in the strongly anti-Arian Lucianic creed promulgated at the Council of Seleucia (359), a step which led to the final victory of Nicene orthodoxy at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Athanasius was restored briefly in 362, only to be quickly exiled by Julian and again by Valens (365). The climate was changing, however, and by 366 Athanasius was secure in his see, where he remained the spokesman for orthodoxy until his death. After him, St. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus secured the victory of orthodoxy in the East. Feast: May 2.* 1*
See translation of Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione by R. W. Thomson (1974); translation of Life of Saint Antony and Letter to Marcellinus by R. C. Gregg (1980).”
bartleby.com/65/at/AthanasSt.html

 

[BibleSteve]

**
Your preconcieved idea of the Catholic church leads you to think that Athanasius was a bully and ran an organization using violence and murder, but that’s not the facts. Athanasius was, as I said prior, in the minority as a Trinitarian.**

I actually had no preconcieved ideas about Athanasius. I simply went to Wikipedia and read the article on him. I came to the section about allegations of violence near the bottom and wondered about these allegations:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

Thanks for the info. I’ll be doing some more reading. Is there any truth to these allegations of violence?

Steve

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

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.

Of course, the Father did not appear in the flesh. All this is anthropomorphism. Although God is spoken of as having body parts like a face, a back, hands, heart, arms, feet, etc. and having emotions like anger, laughter, contentment, we know that man is describing him with the limits of our human language. Do you really believe He has body parts to be seen? While Ex. 33:20 says no one can see the face of God and live, yet we are told that Moses saw his back and conversed with him and lived. Ex. 33:23 Are we to believe that Moses’ interaction in Ex. 19 and here is really only with an angel? What about Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:8? 1 Cor. 13:12 and Rev. 22:3 says we will see God face to face, which only means that we will experience God directly; He really doesn’t have a physical face.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

My point merely was, and I stand by it, was that David was King. He was Jehovah’s anointed King of all Israel.
He was also a strict monotheist, meaning he only believed in ONE God: Jehovah/Yahweh. Yet he said,
“Jehovah said to My Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” My point here is that David’s only true Lord was Jehovah God. Angels were not His Lords.
Now, I will grant the hypothetical chance that if an angel had appeared to David for some reason, David might have used the term “lord” to the angel as a respectful form of address, as the British address certain people as Lords and don’t recognize them to be THEIR LORD in reality. Steve seems to believe that if Jehovah is God (which Jehovah IS), then Jesus must not be Jehovah. That does not follow by necessity. When we speak of Jesus being God, we DO NOT MEAN that Jesus is The Father.
What we mean is that he has always, from all eternity,
been generated by the Father from the Father’s OWN ESSENCE or NATURE, just as human parents contribute HUMAN NATURE and not ANIMAL nature, to their children, so that Jesus, unlike even the highest of the holy angels, is in the most literal sense truly the SON of GOD. We further mean that God the Father has ALWAYS been a Father. As God the Father had no beginning IN TIME, neither did the Son have a beginning in time, but has eternally been generated BY THE FATHER from the FATHER’s own nature. Unlike human children, however, the Son of God, while distinct from the Father, is not a physically-separated being from the Father in his pure spirit essence, but shares the Father’s own divine nature in full. Even while he was in the form of a man. This is why scripture says of Jesus “In him all the fulness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.”
I do not assert that David, in calling the person sitting next to Jehovah 'my Lord" had any full understanding of the deity of Christ. I assert that he uttered a mystery that perhaps he himself did not fully understand and was later clarified by events and by the claims of Jesus about himself.
David asserted that the person sitting next to the one whom he acknowledged as “Jehovah” was also His Lord, too. This is a mystery.
I don’t have my bible or my concordance here with me right now, but there are several statements by Jehovah in the Old Testament that " I myself created the Heavens and the Earth" and “with my own hands I created…” and insisting that Jehovah ALONE created the created order and that NO ONE was with Jehovah helping Jehovah when Jehovah created. Yet the New Testament tells us that the Word (Jesus) was in the beginning with God and made everything that was MADE and that without the WORD, NOT ONE THING WAS MADE THAT WAS MADE. For both OT and NT statements about the creation to be true, then the Word has to be of the same eternal essence as the Father, being His eternally-generated Word, and therefore sharing the same nature of being as Jehovah the Father. That is why John says in the first chapter of His Gospel, In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This is not an assertion that the Word is all there is to the Godhead, but only that the Word shares fully in the Divine Nature of God. Another excellent way to translate “the Word was God,” would be to say that “and what God was, the Word was.”
Love,
Jaypeeto4

 

[MH84]

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.

Sorry to barge in, but I am quite sure you are referring to the Mosaic Law here, but as you know God did not send out other prophets in threes; why would this time be any different. Anyway, the laws given in Deuteronomy, were not decreed during Abraham’s time, but later.

 

[TraditionalCath]

I suppose you all like to discuss this further, but your not convincing
steve of anything. yes, its great that your defending the faith, but it wont help him believe. he is a witness, and he is here to tell us of his witness beliefs, that is pretty much it.

i found this discussion pointless after i gave him proof. we can go back and forth and back and forth about athanasius, or galileo, or
what have you, but he is not going to listen. that much is evident by how long this discussion is going on.

if he wanted to listen, he would’ve by now. for those of you who continue this discussion, well, you’ve got my support, and also your far more patient than i will ever be.

i think that when it gets past a certain point, and the witness is not listening, its just better to pray for them, and end it there. but that is my humble opinion. kudos to you who persevere in this discussion. your far more patient than iam.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I actually had no preconcieved ideas about Athanasius. I simply went to Wikipedia and read the article on him. I came to the section about allegations of violence near the bottom and wondered about these allegations:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

Thanks for the info. I’ll be doing some more reading. Is there any truth to these allegations of violence?

Steve

This is at least the third time in this thread when you have thrown out some bad data as “fact”, been refuted, and then said, “Oh, well…I don’t really know about that…”

Going door to door looking for people who are clueless is easy, and it’s given you a false sense of knowing what you’re talking about…but you’re not having much luck peddling your wares to folks who know better in this forum…

That ought to give you pause…knowledgeable people have answers and rebuttals to your “theology”…but you, in turn, have none for us.

You may have every WTS document ever written in your library, but you don’t have the Truth.

You’ve been lied to, Steve. It’s a cult. Get out.

 

[TraditionalCath]

This is at least the third time in this thread when you have thrown out some bad data as “fact”, been refuted, and then said, “Oh, well…I don’t really know about that…”

Going door to door looking for people who are clueless is easy, and it’s given you a false sense of knowing what you’re talking about…but you’re not having much luck peddling your wares to folks who know better in this forum…

That ought to give you pause…knowledgeable people have answers and rebuttals to your “theology”…but you, in turn, have none for us.

You may have every WTS document ever written in your library, but you don’t have the Truth.

You’ve been lied to, Steve. It’s a cult. Get out.

Well spoken, and very true! :yup: :clapping:

 

[dawgfan]

I suppose you all like to discuss this further, but your not convincing
steve of anything. yes, its great that your defending the faith, but it wont help him believe. he is a witness, and he is here to tell us of his witness beliefs, that is pretty much it.

i found this discussion pointless after i gave him proof. we can go back and forth and back and forth about athanasius, or galileo, or
what have you, but he is not going to listen. that much is evident by how long this discussion is going on.

if he wanted to listen, he would’ve by now. for those of you who continue this discussion, well, you’ve got my support, and also your far more patient than i will ever be.

i think that when it gets past a certain point, and the witness is not listening, its just better to pray for them, and end it there. but that is my humble opinion. kudos to you who persevere in this discussion. your far more patient than iam.

This thread was not started by steve nor is it about steve. You’ve already posted at least 2 times on this thread after you said you weren’t going to participate anymore. I think steve’s contributed alot towards showing about how some JWs try to justify their theology by sources other than the watchtower. I think some of the notes I’ve taken has helped me plug up some holes in my apologetics.

 

[TraditionalCath]

does it matter dawg? no. if i want to add a point later on, where does it forbid me to do so at CAF?

 

[BibleSteve]

This thread was not started by steve nor is it about steve. You’ve already posted at least 2 times on this thread after you said you weren’t going to participate anymore. I think steve’s contributed alot towards showing about how some JWs try to justify their theology by sources other than the watchtower. I think some of the notes I’ve taken has helped me plug up some holes in my apologetics.

Yes, thank you.

I came to my own “theology” prior to becoming one of JW’s.

My sources? The Bible in 50 different translations, stacks of reference books from non-JW sources, comparative religion books, commentaries, Bible Dictionaries, dozens of anti-JW books, and some introductory JW books.

Since becoming one of JW’s, I’ve continued to voraciously read from all sources, JW and non-JW.

If a person has interest in discussing scripture with someone who is well read and yet believes something differently than them, then this is a good opportunity to learn from each other. I personally have read every post and every link provided in great detail. I appreciate getting pointers towards good links with meaty information I hadn’t read before.

If TraditionalCath is feeling frustrated, or Randy feels the need to continuously tell me I’ve been lied to or I’m in a cult, please just give it a rest.

Calling me part of a cult doesn’t mean anything more than it would if I was a 1st century Christian and was being called “cult” for believing Jesus was the Messiah. You think those 1st century Christians weren’t being told they were being lied to and treated as a goof-ball “sect” or “cult” by their Jewish families?

So, I am appreciative to those who want to engage in Scriptural discussion and positive exchange of knowledge and information.

Steve

 

[dawgfan]

does it matter dawg? no. if i want to add a point later on, where does it forbid me to do so at CAF?

Nothing to forbid you and you had some good posts previously.

It just seemed like you were derailing thread to make it about steve and discourage him from continuing discussion of topic.

 

[TraditionalCath]

nope. i had just given up trying to show him things. like he said, give ti a rest. and i did. have a good day dawg.

 

[dawgfan]

I came to my own “theology” prior to becoming one of JW’s.

My sources? The Bible in 50 different translations, stacks of reference books from non-JW sources, comparative religion books, commentaries, Bible Dictionaries, dozens of anti-JW books, and some introductory JW books.

Since becoming one of JW’s, I’ve continued to voraciously read from all sources, JW and non-JW.

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”?

 

[Bishopite]

I actually had no preconcieved ideas about Athanasius. I simply went to Wikipedia and read the article on him. I came to the section about allegations of violence near the bottom and wondered about these allegations:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

Thanks for the info. I’ll be doing some more reading. Is there any truth to these allegations of violence?

Steve

I didn’t say that you had a preconceived ideas about Athanasius, but that you have them about the Catholic church; this is obvious by your previous posts. It seems that the only apparent way you know how to answer the writings of the early Christian leaders (early church fathers, those who were the disciples and or successors of the Apostles) is to attack their personhood which is called an adhominem argument. Or you adhere to the same type of boogy man theory as do many non-Catholics; that the Catholic church had to have somehow manipulated the people and government in order to get its way, yet you unfortunately miss the historical reality that it IS the church Jesus established!

The historical facts are clear that Catholicism has its inception from Jesus Christ, Jehovah’s Wittnesses’ inception is 1800 years later from Charles Taze Russell (used to be called the Russellites) and yet Jesus Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, however according to the JW’s it did and was somehow reinstated in the 19th century by Charles Taze Russell and that is supposed to be rational?
Couldn’t I so faciley believe the Mormons instead of the JW’s since they proclaim the same type of arguement?

If you would, answer for me this question. Last year some JW’s came to my door, one of them is the local leader in my area but even he couldn’t answer this Scriptural question.

Thomas won’t believe Jesus’ resurrection until he sees Him. Jesus tells him to touch his hands and side and Thomas’ response is “my Lord and my God” the same in your translation as ours. Why would Thomas call Jesus “God” which is what the New World Translation affirms if Jesus wasn’t God?
In John 20:28 "In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (New World Translation)

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

I want to take a moment and interject.

This is the non-Catholic area of the forums. And as such we support charitable dialogue with people of ALL faiths.

With that said, inherent in that is disagreement and debate. If you feel that the mere disagreement is a stain on you or your faith, then please consider avoiding this area of the forums.

Our goal here is to learn about other religions, and to have open dialogue with those of different religions.

Thank you for your cooperation and please feel free to continue the discussion.

God bless-

Rachel

 

[BibleSteve]

If you would, answer for me this question. Last year some JW’s came to my door, one of them is the local leader in my area but even he couldn’t answer this Scriptural question.

Thomas won’t believe Jesus’ resurrection until he sees Him. Jesus tells him to touch his hands and side and Thomas’ response is “my Lord and my God” the same in your translation as ours. Why would Thomas call Jesus “God” which is what the New World Translation affirms if Jesus wasn’t God?
In John 20:28 "In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (New World Translation)

I answered this in post #93 here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2306662&highlight=my+lord+my+god+biblesteve#post2306662

 

[MHalsey]

From Steve’s earlier post:

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?

I didn’t know Jesus spoke Greek. I thought he spoke Aramaic.

You began this explanation by saying “no doubt”. This implies that this is your own interpretation and therefore subjective. Also, you have been corrected on this. Jesus did understand what Thomas was saying otherwise he would have rebuked Thomas for calling him God.

But all this is irrelevant, Catholic doctrine is not defined in single scripture quotes. Catholics use all of scripture. Examples have been given from one end of the Bible to the other that help us to define what we believe as the Trinity. But if you insist on focusing on single quotes from scripture, it will get us nowhere. Even though you have been given adequate explanations of each one, and this includes your quotes from Psalm 110 and Acts 3, as well as this most recent one from John 20.

 

[mikeledes]

I apologize if I’m about to repeat what other posters may have argued. I’m new to this thread and i don’t have the time to read every single post, but I would like to add my :twocents:

Jesus is God and that is clearly taught by the Bible. One clear example of this is the application of Old Testament verses about God to Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 4:7-10 (New World Translation)

7 Now to each one of us undeserved kindness was given according to how the Christ measured out the free gift. 8 Wherefore he says: “When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts [in] men.” 9 Now the expression “he ascended,” what does it mean but that he also descended into the lower regions, that is, the earth? 10 The very one that descended is also the one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might give fullness to all things.

The part I highligted in blue is from Psalm 68:18. Paul is applying this verse to Jesus. Now lets look at this verse within its context:

Psalm 68:18 (NWT)

18 You have ascended on high;
You have carried away captives;
You have taken gifts in the form of men,
Yes, even the stubborn ones, to reside [among them], O Jah God.

Paul applies a verse specifically about God to Jesus Christ, thus identifying Jesus as God. Second example is Hebrews 1:10-12, which the inspired author direcly states that Psalm 102:25-27 is about Jesus Christ. Let’s read that verse within its context:

Psalm 102:24-27

**24 I proceeded to say: “O my God,
Do not take me off at the half of my days;
Your years are throughout all generations.
25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing;
And just like a garment they will all of them wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn.
27 But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed. **

If Jesus were not God, identifying Jesus as the subject of Psalm 102:25-27 would be blasphemy since the subject (highlighted in red) is clearly God. The same goes for the previous verses I quoted.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BibleSteve]

Hebrews 1:10-12, which the inspired author direcly states that Psalm 102:25-27 is about Jesus Christ. If Jesus were not God, identifying Jesus as the subject of Psalm 102:25-27 would be blasphemy since the subject (highlighted in red) is clearly God.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one *through *whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.)

The Scriptures show that Jehovah is the true God (Psa 83:13) and he is distinct from Jesus (Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13).

Thanks again for you contribution.

Steve