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.
How did you miss it? It’s by the **authority **of the Holy Spirit.

Here is the earlier quote:
If the Holy Spirit is not a person, how can he have authority?

in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit applies “I” or ego to himself which is the hallmark of personhood. Electricity can not say “set apart those whom **I **have called”.
 
Yes, I agree with you. There is no 100% concrete proof text that Jesus is Michael. The WT also says this. They look at various scriptures and descriptions of Michael and conclude "The scriptures point to Jesus being Michael’. Personally, I don’t argue this point because I fully realize this is a subjective, interpretive conclusion that can’t be 100% proved in Scripture. I think it an interesting idea, but since it’s not objectively proved in Scripture, I don’t argue its position.

I agree with you the Trinity idea is similar. Proponents take various descriptions of Jesus and note they are similar to Jehovah and conclude Jesus must be Jehovah. I am actually surprised at how many of the Trinity proofs fall apart so easily." They are weak and flimsy, they are based on faulty logic.

If Jesus really was a Son of God as JWs believe, it would be completely logical for him to be referring to himself having a God (Rev 3:12), sitting at Jehovah’s side (Psa 110:1-5), and being glorified by means of Jehovah (Acts 3:12). He would be calling himself “Son of God” as he always does. He would never call himself God, and he never does. If he was a Son of God, we would never find a reference to the phrase “God the Son” and we don’t.

I often read the Bible, with the idea that Jesus is God and I find I have to invent all sorts of complex explainations to hold the doctrine in place. However, if I read the Bible with the idea that Jesus really is a Son… the Son of Jehovah God of the OT, things lay out very easily. For example, each of these questions is easily answered with the understanding that Jesus is simply a Son of God, but it’s complex in trying to understand these in line with thinking that Jesus is Jehovah.
  1. Why did he say that he did not come of his “own initiative” but was sent?
    John 8:42, 1 John 4:9
  2. Why did Jesus not know the “day and the hour” of the Great Tribulation
    but God did? Matt. 24:36
  3. Who did Jesus speak to in prayer?
  4. How did he “appear before the person of God for us”? Heb. 9:24
  5. Why did Jesus say “the Father is greater than I am”? John 14:28,
    Php. 2:5, 6
  6. Who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism saying “this is my son”?
    Matt. 3:17
  7. How could he be exalted to a superior position? Php. 2:9, 10
  8. How can he be the “mediator between God and man”? 1Tim. 2:5
  9. Why did Paul say the “the head of Christ is God”? 1Cor. 11:30
  10. Why did Jesus “hand over the Kingdom to his God” and “subject
    himself to God”? 1Cor. 15:24, 28
  11. Who does he refer to as “my God and your God”? John 20:17
  12. How does he sit at God’s right hand? Ps. 110:1, Heb. 10:12, 13
  13. Why does John say “no man has seen God at any time”? John 1:18
  14. Why did not people die when they saw Jesus? Ex. 30:20
  15. How was Jesus dead and God alive at the same time? Acts 2:24
  16. Why did he need someone to save him? Heb. 5:7
  17. Who is reffered to prophetically at Prov. 8:22-31?
  18. Why did Jesus say “that all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven
    and on earth”? Matt. 28:18, Dan. 7:13, 14 (similar)
  19. Why did he have godly fear? Heb. 5:7
  20. How could he learn obedience and be made perfect? Heb. 5:8-9
  21. Why would an angel be able to strengthen him or angels minister to him?
    Luke 22:43, Matt. 4:11
  22. Why would Satan try to tempt him if he KNEW that he was GOD?
    Matt. 4:1-11
  23. Jesus when sent to the earth was made to “be Lower” than the angels.
    Heb. 2:7. How could any part of a God Head EVER be lower than the
    angels?
  24. Then if Jesus was the sameas God, who was he being tempted to rebel
    against? Could God be tempted to rebel against himself? Matt. 4:1
  25. Near the end of his earthly life, Jesus cried out “My God, why have you forsaken me?” Matt. 27:46 Can God desert or forsake himself?
  26. Heb. 5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience! To whom would he obey if he was GOD? And Does God need to LEARN anything?
I find it interresting that jesus is micheal the archangel to be an hangover from seventh day adventism and the christian connection movements.
 
What did you think you were going to find when you decided to join a Catholic forum, a bunch of ignorant papists that don’t know their Bible?

Sorry, what you are pointing out is the YOU are coming to a false conclusion. Scriptures validates the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Especially since Holy Mother Church put Scripure together herself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. See the writing of Irenaeous as early as the mid 2nd Century AD.
Hi Steve, how do you know if Westcott and Hort got the greek manuscript correct? After all it is based on manuscripts put together by the catholic or orthodox churches? How do you know that they did not change the manuscripts even before Arius came into existence? I am just curious on this.

Also, how do you know that you even have the correct NT canon since, the canon was not completed until 399 AD about 75 years after the trinity was defined? If the church could not be trusted to correctly define doctrine, why do you trust it to define the canon of scripture?

just ideas for a new thread on Bible Alone.
 
Where exactly does it say, that the Son of God was granted authority by the Father to forgive sin?
(Matthew 9:1-8) So, boarding the boat, he proceeded across and went into his own city. 2And, look! they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. On seeing their faith Jesus said to the paralytic: “Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven.” 3And, look! certain of the scribes said to themselves: “This fellow is blaspheming.” 4And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: “Why are YOU thinking wicked things in YOUR hearts? 5For instance, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? 6However, in order for YOU to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home.” 7And he got up and went off to his home. 8*At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.
 
Hi Steve, how do you know if Westcott and Hort got the greek manuscript correct? After all it is based on manuscripts put together by the catholic or orthodox churches? How do you know that they did not change the manuscripts even before Arius came into existence? I am just curious on this.

Also, how do you know that you even have the correct NT canon since, the canon was not completed until 399 AD about 75 years after the trinity was defined? If the church could not be trusted to correctly define doctrine, why do you trust it to define the canon of scripture?

just ideas for a new thread on Bible Alone.
Please feel free to open another thread.
 
Because Jesus is both God and Man. He has a human and a divine nature united in one person. He is not part of God. He is fully God. There are things that apply to Jesus as man and there are things that apply to Jesus as God. Your questions show that you lack an understanding of the Trinity. The easiest answer is not always the right one. You may find JW theology on God easier to understand and explain, but that does not make it right. Here are a couple of links for you. Since this is a serious matter, I hope and pray that you take the time to read both.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101sbs.asp

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

God Bless,
Michael
If you think about it, satan was an angel in heaven before his fall, and as such he would have seen or been aware of the tri-une God, that is why he created trinities in the false religions because frankly he would conterfiet the geniune.
 
Steve says he is not counting his time here, so I have to believe him. But usually a JW would be counting every minute they spend on this forum as field service time and it would be recorded on their time slips. Also if the JW has already spoken to you once then the next time it is counted as a ‘return visit’. after three return visits you might even be able to stretch it into being counted as a Bible Study. So an average thread like this could be very productive (on paper) for a JW. How do I know? I did it.
Ravyn
I think I may have read somewhere that they did away with those report cards.
 
If the Holy Spirit is not a person, how can he have authority?

in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit applies “I” or ego to himself which is the hallmark of personhood. Electricity can not say “set apart those whom **I **have called”.
Personification does not prove personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17,*26; 15:26; 16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17,*21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·ra′kle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneu′ma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneu′ma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·ra′kle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16,*17; 16:7,*8.
 
If the Holy Spirit is not a person, how can he have authority?

in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit applies “I” or ego to himself which is the hallmark of personhood. Electricity can not say “set apart those whom **I **have called”.
Further evidence against the idea of personality as regards the holy spirit is the way it is used in association with other impersonal things, such as water and fire (Mt 3:11; Mr 1:8); and Christians are spoken of as being baptized “in holy spirit.” (Ac 1:5; 11:16) Persons are urged to become “filled with spirit” instead of with wine. (Eph 5:18) So, too, persons are spoken of as being ‘filled’ with it along with such qualities as wisdom and faith (Ac 6:3,5; 11:24) or joy (Ac 13:52); and holy spirit is inserted, or sandwiched in, with a number of such qualities at 2Corinthians 6:6. It is most unlikely that such expressions would be made if the holy spirit were a divine person. As to the spirit’s ‘bearing witness’ (Ac 5:32; 20:23), it may be noted that the same thing is said of the water and the blood at 1*John 5:6-8. While some texts refer to the spirit as ‘witnessing,’ ‘speaking,’ or ‘saying’ things, other texts make clear that it spoke through persons, having no personal voice of its own. (Compare Heb 3:7; 10:15-17; Ps 95:7; Jer 31:33,*34; Ac 19:2-6; 21:4; 28:25.) It may thus be compared to radio waves that can transmit a message from a person speaking into a microphone and cause his voice to be heard by persons a distance away, in effect, ‘speaking’ the message by a radio loudspeaker. God, by his spirit, transmits his messages and communicates his will to the minds and hearts of his servants on earth, who, in turn, may convey that message to yet others.
 
Dear Jaypeeto4,

As always, you provide good and thoughtful ideas.

The phrase “the beginning of the creation by God” is slightly ambiguous. A non-Trinitarian will see this as saying Jesus the first part or beginning of God’s creation. Thus, a created being.

A Trinitarian will see it as saying Jesus is not a created being, but the source of the creation.

In order to bring better clarification on how we should understand it can look at this familiar scripture:

Col 1:15, 16 “He [Jesus] …. The first-born of all creation….”

Now, most people focus all of their debate on “first-born”. I want to focus on “first-born of”

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.

What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15?

Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

By simply looking how the Scripture use the phrase “first-born of”, I have concluded that holding to that consistency, Jesus would have to be part of the group, or part of “creation”.

Thank you for the opportunity to reason from the Scriptures with you.
preemience
 
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. - Romans 8:16 DRV
How does an “active force” pray for us?
40.png
BibleSteve:
Personification does not prove personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17,*26; 15:26; 16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17,*21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·ra′kle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneu′ma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneu′ma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·ra′kle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16,*17; 16:7,*8.
 
If you think about it, satan was an angel in heaven before his fall, and as such he would have seen or been aware of the tri-une God, that is why he created trinities in the false religions because frankly he would conterfiet the geniune.
Interesting hypothesis. Another one worthy of consideration is that he knew YHWH was not a Trinity, and wanted to derail the plain understanding that YHWH was “one”, by encouraging the disuse and removal of the divine name, and introducting the idea of a Trinity to get people to worship and pray to someone other than YHWH
 
preemience
I thought the argument about how the Bible used “First born of _______” was always consitently putting Firstborn into the group of __________ was a pretty good argument.

Your one word answer seems to have missed the point of the argument.
 
Dear Jaypeeto4,

Continuing along, examining the question of whether Jesus is a created being, or not, we come to Proverb 8:22

Is this scripture referring to Jesus?


Does this scripture refer to Jesus? If not, how was wisdom produced? Why is Wisdom Talking? What thoughts do the readers have on this?
ah NO, Wisdom is a attribute of God and therefore always existed.

If God created wisdom than that would mean there was a time when God lacked wisdom, and that simply does not fit the nature of God.

The word translated “possessed” or “created” in Proverbs 8:22 really has to do with “acquire” like in purchase, which does not fit niecely in either system.

Thus this only demonstrates that taking poetry literally is bad theology to say the least.

But, it can also refer to “brithing” which does fit our system nicely.
**Solomon is taking an impersonal attribute of God and personifying it, a common literary feature of Wisdom literature. **The reason why Solomon personified Wisdom as a woman is because the Hebrew word for it, hokmah, is feminine in gender.
Moreover, the verb for create in verse 22 is qanah which can refer to acquiring, purchasing, getting etc., just as the following lexicon explains:
  1. to get, acquire, create, buy, possess
    a) (Qal)
  2. to get, acquire, obtain
    a) of God originating, creating, redeeming His people
  3. possessor
    b) of Eve acquiring
    c) of acquiring knowledge, wisdom
  4. to buy
    b) (Niphal) to be bought
    c) (Hiphil) to cause to possess (Source)
    It is used throughout Proverbs to mean “acquire,” “purchase,” “get”:
“the wise man also may hear and increase in learning, and the man of understanding acquire skill,” Proverbs 1:5
“do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth. Get wisdom; get insight… The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.” Proverbs 4:5, 7
“He who ignores instruction despises himself, but he who heeds admonition gains understanding.” Proverbs 15:32
continued…
 
“To get wisdom is better than gold; to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.” Proverbs 16:16
“Why should a fool have a price in his hand to buy wisdom, when he has no mind?” Proverbs 17:16
“An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” Proverbs 18:15
“He who gets wisdom loves himself; he who keeps understanding will prosper.” Proverbs 19:8
“‘It is bad, it is bad,’ says the buyer; but when he goes away, then he boasts.” Proverbs 20:14
“Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.” Proverbs 23:23
In the context of Proverbs 8:22 the verb is more literally translated, not as create, but as begotten or birthed, i.e. “Yahweh begot/ birthed me as the beginning of his ways.” This can be readily seen from a more literal rendering of Proverbs 8:22-25:
“Yahweh himself begat me as the beginning of his way, the first of his acts of old. From eternity I was appointed, from the start, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been fashioned, before the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains.”
The text is obviously speaking figuratively on how Yahweh acquired Wisdom, i.e. Yahweh got it by begetting or birthing it in order to use it to create everything. We know that it is figurative since Yahweh doesn’t literally give birth in labor pains.
The following texts make it clear that Wisdom was birthed for the purpose of being used by Yahweh to create:
“Happy is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gets understanding, for the gain from it is better than gain from silver and its profit better than gold. She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy. The LORD BY WISDOM founded the earth; BY UNDERSTANDING he established the heavens; BY HIS KNOWLEDGE the deeps broke forth, and the clouds drop down the dew.” Proverbs 3:13-20
continued…
 
David, in the Psalms, wrote that God created everything that has been made in Wisdom:
“He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth. You make springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow between the hills; they give drink to every beast of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst. Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell; they sing among the branches. From your lofty abode you water the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work. You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. The trees of the LORD are watered abundantl, the cedars of Lebanon that he planted. In them the birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the fir trees. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rock badgers. He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting. You make darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep about. The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens. Man goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening. O LORD, how manifold are your works! IN WISDOM HAVE YOU MADE THEM ALL; the earth is full of your creatures.” Psalm 104:1-24 ESV
The fact that Wisdom was used by God to create every created thing shows that Wisdom itself is not created since it existed before creation. This leads us to our next point.
It is important to note that not every act of begetting or creation necessarily implies that the thing created or begotten didn’t exist prior to that moment. For instance, the verb qanah is used in reference to Eve giving birth to Cain:
“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.’” Genesis 4:1 RSV
It is obvious that Cain didn’t come into existence the moment that Eve gave birth or “produced him” since he was already alive and existing in his mother’s womb for at least nine months. This demonstrates that the verb qanah doesn’t necessarily refer to creating someone or something from nothing, but can refer to something or someone that already existed and was then brought forth or birthed.
In light of the foregoing, the question then becomes from where did Yahweh beget Wisdom? Did he beget it by creating it out of nothing, ex nihilo, or did he beget it out of his own Being, out of himself? Proverbs itself provides a clue:
“For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;” Proverbs 2:6 RSV
The Wisdom which Yahweh gives is the knowledge and understanding that comes from his mouth. The reference is essentially saying that Yahweh produced Wisdom out of his own mouth, which shows that Wisdom wasn’t created from nothing since it existed with(in) Yahweh. In other words, Yahweh always had Wisdom as an attribute which he then produced or brought forth in order to create and to give to others.
Basically, what this implies is that Proverbs is using figurative language to describe how Yahweh birthed his own eternal attribute of Wisdom from Himself in creating everything. Thus, even if the text were referring to Christ this would only prove that the Creedal statements were correct in stating that Jesus was eternally begotten before all creation, begotten not made.
Yet, as it stands, this text isn’t referring to Christ nor is it saying that Wisdom was created from nothing. It is simply a poetic description of how Yahweh used his own eternal attribute of Wisdom to create all things.
answering-islam.de/Main/Shamoun/q_wisdom_created.htm
 
I thought the argument about how the Bible used “First born of _______” was always consitently putting Firstborn into the group of __________ was a pretty good argument.

Your one word answer seems to have missed the point of the argument.
Actually it does not. The Jews in the Talmud refer to God as “Bekorah Shelolam,” Literally the Firstborn of all creation.

Indeed At Robertson writes:
The use of this word does not show what Arius argued, that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” . . . Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikon (Image) and to the universe as prototokos (First-born).
(Word Pictures in the NT, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1932, vol. 4 of 6, 477-478)
Greek Scholar Marvin Vincent:
“First-born” points to eternal preexistence . . . We must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: “in Him were all things created.”
Code:
(Word Studies in the NT, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946; orig. 1887; vol. 3 of 4, 468)
 
I would argue that “firstborn of creation” shows Jesus is part of the creation and being called “firsborn from the dead” simply means he was dead. Here’s why…

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.

This point is also made by Jesus being called “firstborn of the dead”. He was part of the group being “dead”.

What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15?

Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

Now, specifically on the phrase “firstborn from the dead”. Obviously, Jesus was not the first resurrection in the Bible, so Trinitarians will see this as proof the word “firstborn” has another meaning, suggesting it means things like prime, most excellent, most distinguished. However, Jesus was “first” chronologically in a very special way. He was the first raised from the dead to endless life. Everyone else previously resurrected later died again.
stopping at page 24 post 350

Among us Jews “firstborn” simply means Preeminence. If you read Hebrews 1, Col 1 and Phil 2, Preeminence is the major message in these contexts, not that the Son of God was created.

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-6682%28199607%2F10%292%3A87%3A1%2F2%3C212%3AWBDTTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

You are simply reading your theology into the text where it is not.

For example, the NWT adds the word “[other]” several times, when in fact the word otehr does not in anyway appear in the text. If paul wanted to say “all other things” then there were greek words he would be able to use. And, yet he did not use any of those words at all. Not one manuscript supports the word “other” in the text. So, add the word other simply shows us the dishonestly of the watchtower translators.

mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=other
mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=another

Colossians 1:15-20 (New International Version)

The Supremacy of Christ

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

again, the concept that Son of God was the first created comes from Greber’s spiritualist translation,

“He was the firs of all creatures to come into being,” Col 1:17.

Does it not bother you that your theology is in full agreement with a spiritualist whom recieved his translation from demons?

A translation that the watchtower has used in the past to justifly their theology.

I have been looking for “occultic” or “spiritualist” translations that teach the trinity or that translates those texts the way we do. I have not been able to find any. But, Greber’s NT produced by speaking to demons is in full agreement with your theology.
 
As proof of Preeminence, there is the case of Esau and Jacob, and the children of Hagar vs Sarah. Both that gain Preeminence were not the first out of the womb.

If you are not aware, we believe the Son of God was eternally begotten, not made.

Justin Martyr

“God begot before all creatures a beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word… We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word–yet, not by any cutting of, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61 [ca. A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being . . . In what manner, then, would the word of God–indeed, the great God himself, since he is the Word–differ from the word of men?” (Against Heresies 2:13:8 [ca. A.D. 185]).

Tertullian

“[W]hen God says, Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: My heart has poured forth my finest Word’ [Ps. 45:1-2]” (Against Praxeas 7:1 [ca. A.D. 220]).

Hippolytus

“Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word–not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of those things which came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Philosophoumena or Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [ca. A.D. 225]).

Origin

“So also Wisdom, since he proceeds from God, is generated from the very substance of God” (Commentaries on Hebrews [ca. A.D. 240]).

Council of Nicaea

“We believe . . . in our one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, born, not made . . .” (The Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9311frs.asp

google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=eternally+begotten+not+made&spell=1

google.com/search?hl=en&q=eternal+Son+of+God
 
Arguing about this with JWs is futile, unless you have the ability to sumon god/jesus on command and get him to answer questions there is probably no way you can prove beyond all doubt that they are wrong to them, the wording in the bible is a little too vague and they aren’t going to care about catholic doctrine.

You also have to remember they spend 5+ hours a week being taught how to attack the doctrines of other religions, especially other christian ones. Arguing with a JW about another religions doctrines is a waste of time, the only thing that gets a response is talking with them about the history and doctrines of their religion. Unfortunately they are taught to avoid this type of discussion and they will usually try to avoid it by changing the subject or avoiding you all together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top