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

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Word of Speech was a God" (John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631)

“and was himself a divine person” (Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768)

“a God” (Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37).)

1631? 1776?

You’re citing these guys as examples of the best that Greek scholarship has to offer?

By the way, your boy, John Crellius Fancus, got a whopping five hits…yeah, you and the Mormons again.

Why is it the only place I can find any of these famous translators quoted is on chat boards from this same list of quotes that is being posted over and over and over again by JW’s?

Why is it that no one else has ever quoted any of these noted scholars?

Just you. And the Mormons.

Josh
28, 2006 at 9:57 pm

Steve, welcome and thanks for commenting. You have presented an argument usually called “argument from authority”. What is important now is determining if the authorities you have listed are experts in Greek and known for their studies, and if they have been quoted accurately. I do not have time in this one post, or the resoures to answer each and everyone.

Citing Newcome is perhaps the most disturbing. Newcomes transltation was actually in 1796 and revised in 1808 by a Heretical Unitarian. You can see the original titlepage and translation of John here forananswer.org/Top_JW/Newcome.htm

Moffett was a stout Trinitarian by his own words ” “‘The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,’ simply means “The word was divine…And the Word became human.’ The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…” Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same, (Abingdon-Cokesbury), 1945, p.61.”

Also a good chunk of those quotes while a bit ambiguous are not anti trinitarian. Divine person, divine being, was divine are abmiguous because the could go either for absolute diety or divine as in godlike. As seen my Moffet’s quote trinitarians take the terms as absolute diety, while non trinitarians will jump at them as support for the NWT.

Two of your most important quotes have been misrepresented by the Watchtower. I wonder how many more will prove to be misrepresnted given the the time to research them?

greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/10/28/john-11/

Steve, may I suggest you list exactly whom each “translator” you quoted is, I mean their religion, like “unitarian”, “christadelphian”, “occultist”, etc., thanks.

Just saying that so and so was a professor does not impress us.

digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Harner2.htm

hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/04/apologetics-in-action.html

hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/05/jesus-as-theos.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Steve says he has read every piece of Watchtower literature dating back to the 1870s and finds no truth in the accusations made against the Watchtower Society.

Steve, the UNABRIDGED editions of all the watchtower literature is avilable through researchapplications.org/HTML%20pages/products.html ( publisher )

towerwatch.com/bookstore/cdrom/cds.htm

carm.org/goods/k_cd_collection.htm

If you are willing to send me a complete set of this literature unabridged, I am more than happy to read it all.

See, my Private Message to you for my address.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

So, do those whom you quote deny the Trinity? Theos en ho logos is translated properly “The Word was God.”
Besides if Jesus wasn’t God then why would Thomas say in John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!?”
That type of idiomatic language was NOT used in that time, so you can’t say that Thomas was saying it in an idiomatic way.

Also, if Jesus was not God, then his death would be insufficent to cancel out the sins of all people. Read Eze 18. A mere creature can not cover for the sins of another before God.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I’m not sure measuring a person’s academic knowledge in Greek is what Jesus had in mind for us in determining who is acceptable to him. Nor are the degrees they have… Peter and John were “unlettered” and “ordinary”… Jesus said it was a matter of “doing” the will of his Father…

And, as Jews they were at least trilingual in greek, hebrew and aramaic because that part of the world was in the middle of trade routes. “unlettered” simply meant that they were igornant of the rulings of the elders, ie tidious Jewish traditions about the law.
The fact is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter – wrote letters or gospels – that rules out not being able to read and write.

The average Jew learned the scriptures from their parents, and in Temple worship.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

See, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.,” for the historical proof that they would be trilinqualists.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Here you go steve,

In San Diego, California in the 1920s, the Watch Tower Society built a house in California called Beth Sarim. The Hebrew words Beth Sarim mean ‘House of the Princes’. It was funded by specific donations for the stated purpose of “housing the prophets and godly men of old”, who were expected to be physically resurrected in 1925.[1] before Armageddon to help with Christ’s Millennial reign over the earth. Rutherford resided at the villa in his last years of ill health until his death in 1942. In 1948 the villa was sold. Soon after, the The Watchtower, November 1, 1950, pages 414-17 published a changed understanding of the aforementioned teaching to one where the “earthly forefathers of Jesus Christ would be resurrected after Armageddon.” [2]

After his death Rutherford’s burial was delayed for three and a half months due to legal proceedings arising from his desire to be buring at Beth Sarim. Consolation 1942 May 27 explained that “Judge Rutherford looked for the early triumph of “the King of the East”, Christ Jesus, now leading the host of heaven, and he desired to be buried at dawn facing the rising sun, in an isolated part of the ground which would be administered by the princes, who should return from their graves.”

from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Franklin_Rutherford

and a little piece on russel:

Russel’s wife sued him for divorce, see here:

In 1906, she sued him for divorce under the claim of mental cruelty as a direct result of their marriage agreement of perpetual celibacy. During the trial she indirectly alleged sexual misconduct by Charles with a Watch Tower stenographer whom they had long been caring for as a foster child. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle published what was claimed to be segments from the court transcript, which can be read by visiting this link. Maria Russell, as she was named in her obituary, died in St. Petersburg, Florida in August of 1938 from Hodgkin’s disease.

would you trust a guy who used pyramidology? i wouldn’t! see this:

Russell backed up some calculations using pyramidology. Following the view first taught by Christian writers, such as John Taylor, Charles Piazzi Smyth and Joseph Seiss, he believed the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by the Hebrews (associated to the Hyksos) under God’s direction, to be understood only in our day. He adopted and used the English phrase, referring to it as “the Bible in stone”. Based upon certain biblical texts, such as Isaiah 19:19,20, and others, the various ascending and descending passages were viewed as representing the fall of man, the provision of the Mosaic Law, the death of Christ, and the exultation of the saints in heaven. Calculations were made using the pattern of an inch per year. Dates such as 1874, 1914, and 1948 were purported to have been found through the study of this monument. A detailed review of his thoughts can be found in the appendix of “Thy Kingdom Come”.

see also this:

Russell believed that the land of Palestine belonged to the Jewish race, God was now calling them back to their land, and that they would be the center of earthly leadership under God’s Kingdom

from wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell

I know I have been curious about

The ‘Watchtower Pyramid’ erected near Russell’s grave?

findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pis&GRid=5591&PIgrid=5591&PIcrid=641323&PIpi=82324&

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I think it would behoove anyone following this discussion to check out the following link on what some scholars have to say about John 1:1 and the New World Translation.

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20%20NWT.htm NWT

Hope I can get the link to work. Since I can’t get it to work do a search at For an answer: Christian Apologetics Scholars & NWT or maybe someone else can get the link to work. Thanks.

for some reason your like did not work, since %20 means a space in html. Maybe this will work. If not replace the %20 with a space in the address line.

forananswer.org/Top_JW/ScholarsandNWT.htm

letusreason.org/JW38.htm

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=scholars+NWT+John+1%3A1

The link in google works.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The previous post dismiss Russell because he didn’t know Greek. I have never got the impression that deciding who has Bible truth is a function of measuring their academic knowledge.

Jesus said something similar:

(Matthew 11:25) At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.

When someone says we should disregard someone view about the Bible because of a lack of secular knowledge, or lack of degrees, I believe that is contrary to the way Jehovah and Jesus view matters. Higher Education, like riches, can make a person feel superior to others… not a quality Jehovah and Jesus are interested in.

Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your** mind**.’

God expects us to study the scriptures in the orignial languages – it is just part of loving him with our mind to want to know exactly what his message to us is.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The NWT was reviewed by Jason David BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff…
tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

Jason BeDuhn “The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word was divine” is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. “The Word was God” is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to “The Word was divine” because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God).”

• from a prominent Jehovah’s Witness website
  Unlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, DeBuhn has not been quoted out of context. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University.
  BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek. BeDuhn’s PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.

This is not to say that BeDuhn is to be dismissed lightly. He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts. He says that he is “not a theologian,” by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint. However, it is questionable whether one approaching the text from a professed “non-theological” standpoint is any less free from bias than one professing a theological commitment; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis. Further, Dr. BeDuhn as a “non-theologian” may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr. BeDuhn’s statement that he is unaware of who Murray J. Harris is, below).

BeDuhn argues that the traditional translation is extremely “unlikely” from a grammatical standpoint. To my knowledge, however, Dr. DeBuhn has not interacted publicly with the majority of scholarship on this topic (a summary of which you may find here) which his views contradict. This includes his recent book, Truth in Translation… Further, his statement that the traditional rendering “narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)” seems a strawman argument: **Those who argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the qualities or attributes of God. **Trinitarians could even accept Dr. BeDuhn’s substitution of “categorical” for Harner’s “qualitative,” so long was we understand that for John, the category that includes the true God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God, p. 298, n93).

BeDuhn attempted to defend the NWT to Catholic apologist John Pacheco. You’ll find their discussion of John 1:1 here. You will notice that a necessary presupposition of BeDuhn’s argument is that John’s beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy. John is not “concerned” with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, BeDuhn suggests. He tells us that Paul does not “control” what John meant and vice versa. However, those who hold to the harmony of Scripture - as do Jehovah’s Witnesses - do not accept this necessary presupposition. Therefore both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject his conclusions, for they are based on presuppositions with which we cannot agree.

**Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation “and the Word was divine.” **Dr. BeDuhn has stated in a private email that this rendering “leaves open” a Trinitarian solution (BeDuhn to Steven S. 12/26/2001). In this same email, he states that he does not know who Murray J. Harris is. It would seem that any cogent defense of Dr. BeDuhn’s views would require interaction with Harris’ thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus as God (see particularly Harris’ comments regarding “the Word was divine,” p. 63ff).

BeDuhn sees “divine” as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John’s intended meaning was “divine” simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios (“divine”), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?

You may find a lengthy dialog between Dr. BeDuhn and me here.

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#BeDuhn

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

iam unfamiliar with that article, but since iam honest and fair, i will gladly read it. and after i read it, i will comment to you about it.

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

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

aside: how many of the 144,000 were really virgins?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Bishopite;2308553:

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. 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

It went both ways, neither has any barring on what is true…

“The Arian emperors were especially strong rulers and they persecuted the homoousians.”

isthmia.osu.edu/teg/50501/9.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Arian+emperors+persecution

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Yes, The Catholic article specifically says “it claims to be God’s inspired prophet” This is 100% false.

I showed Yessisan multiple articles from 1880 forward where the the WTS says over and over and over:

“We are not inspired”
“We do not have the gift of prophcy”
“Not Inspired”
“Not Infallible like Pope claims”
“No Inspiration in Speaking or Writing”

She’s seen it with her own eyes now. Ask her. If anyone wants to see for themselves, please PM me.

For the Catholic Church or anyone else to fraudulently claim JW"s claim to being “inspired” or “inspired prophets”, while ignoring the absolustely explicit statements mentioned above shows an agenda.

And yes, I doubt the Catholic Church gathered up the original articles and reviewed them before posting the false charge about claiming to be “inspired” or “inspired prophets”.

Steve

please give links to those quotes about not being God’s leader or inspired so we can read the context of each thanks.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

ok so if your not inspired then, then how do you know that what your society teaches is the “truth”? how can they then claim to speak for God? how? Did God give them permission to speak on His behalf? no. so how can they claim that they are God’s mouthpiece then? they can’t! think about it steve! use your wealth of knowledge that you possess, and sincerely think about that for a minute! your basically stating that CA information in the library is wrong, and your claiming that it is false, so are you accusing the people who put it up on the site as promoting falsehood? and lies? they are telling the truth steve! are you accusing them then of promoting falsehood? say so. your honest right? say so if that is what you think. be honest and be blunt.

The early church has a claim to infalliblity right?

The current catholic church makes the same claim about the pope?

The watchtower is not infallible, nor inspired?

which then sounds more like the earily church?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Oh, we should mention the FACT that not one of the people listed below ever believed that Jesus is the Archangel Michael either (except for Russell). Sabellius, by the way, DID believe that Jesus was Almighty God. His ERROR was that he believed that Jesus was God the FATHER and that the FATHER incarnated and died on the Cross as the son (temporarily) named Jesus. Sabellius’s error is called MODALISM.

Natalius [2], ~200
Sabellius, ~220
Paul of Samosata, 269
Arius, 336
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, baptized Constantine
Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
Antipope Felix II, 365
Aëtius, 367
Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
Muhammad, 632, see also Isa
Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
Juan de Valdés, 1541
Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin
Sebastian Castellio, 1563
Ferenc Dávid, 1579
Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
John Biddle, 1662
Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy in Britain
John Locke, 1704
Isaac Newton, 1727
William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710
Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772
Benjamin Franklin, 1790
Joseph Priestley, 1804
Joseph Smith, 1805
Thomas Paine, 1809
Thomas Jefferson, 1826
James Madison, 1836
William Ellery Channing, 1842
Robert Hibbert, 1849
John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
Benjamin Wilson, 18??
James Martineau, 1900
Charles Taze Russell, 1916
Neville Chamberlain, 1940
William Branham, 1965
Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986

Was not franklin a diest? armstong a polytheist? smith also a polytheist?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Steve–true or false:
do JWs believe that the Faithful and Discreet Slave ‘Class’ (thru the Governing Body) is the sole channel of communication from God to man today? The only ones on Earth feeding the sheep the food at the proper time?
semantics. You may not call it inspiration. But as JWs like to point out ‘inspired’ means ‘God breathed’ --so how else does He whisper in JW ears–and JW ears alone?
Ravyn

interresting, documentation please

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I believe it is fair to say that JW’s would have the same answer the Catholics do on this, however, we wouldn’t claim inspiration, or infallibility.

What is the current Catholic belief about the Pope and Church on this question?

You are right, we have never claimed inspiration, although the Catholic Answers incorrectly makes that specific claim.

The Bible writers were “inspired”…

JW’s use the term “spirit-directed”. Do Catholics believe they recieved the Holy Spirit and that it directs them? I believe most do, so Catholics should have no argument with another group that similarly believes they are “spirit-directed”, and never make any claim of being 'inspired", or “infallible”.

Steve

So, if God’s spirit is directing someone, then that direction is not infallible?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

well, not exactly–they claim to BE the sole channel of communication from God to man.

and don’t fall for Steve’s red herring—what does inspiration have to do with infallibility? A song can be inspired, an artist is inspired. He is only throwing that out there to get you all arguing about something else before this topic is done.

also just FYI–the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class is the specific group which in the past was headed by the Governing Body–but there have been legal changes in the last few years to the actual corporation–who are members of the larger group of ‘annointed’ or the ‘Remnant’ of those remaining on the Earth who have the Heavenly Calling (or are of the 144,000). When I was a young girl it was believed that any of the annointed who were functioning to serve spiritual food were part of the F&DS but the last I heard it was now encouraged to believe that the F&DS were only at headquarters in Brooklyn or on assignment from there in an official capacity. My father claimed to be one of them.

Ravyn

and, how many of those 144,000 JW’s were virgins?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

BibleSteve,

Two questions:

Are you a baptized JW?

If yes, do you believe that the leadership of the Watchtower organization speaks for Jehovah on earth and that the organization is His sole channel of communication to mankind?

forgive me, was this question answered?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

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+

Well said, steves’ question is put to rest far as a I concerned.

 

[jackielbasa]

DEAR BIBLE STEVE…

I think I remember seeing you in AOL in the past…when I bothered to use that service…since dropped them…anyway… you 30 yr quest of readfing and study on the tirnity etc hasnt aided you in one important area however…that is faith - your sincereity is obvious but its based on your terms and understanding… yo cannot see the truth of WHO JESUS IS…ie: GOD because your eyes have a log in them, a log named BibleSteve…I respect your scholarship and ability to quote passages etc…but you are loking to put JESUS in the box you define…and not find HIM where HE IS…in HIS CHURCH…there HE IS IN HIS FULLNESS, you havent stepped on to the surface as yet and IM not surpirsed you dont understand better…let laone have given 30 yrs to this quest…you will give 30 more if GOD allows it…since you do it on your terms…and faith in its fullness is deeper than your personal imprimatur…GOd help you…and Bless you always…PAX CHRISTI.