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

[mikeledes]

So, anyone else in the Bible says “my God” (like Thomas, and various OT Bible writers), and you’re sure they are identifying the recipient as Jehovah. But Jesus himself says it and now he, as Jehovah, is just quoting scripture…

Jesus referred to his Father, Jehovah many times by “my God”.

As one who possesses a human nature, he can rightfully call His Father My God. However, no creature can call another creature “My God.” The fact that Jesus did not correct such a potentially blashpemous statement proves that Jesus acknowledged what Thomas said about Him.

God bless,
Michael

 

[BibleSteve]

ROFL, with all respect, you bring up people being killed for their beliefs, and I show that Arian Emperiors did the same thing. You point to a list of forbidden books, and I point out that people are disfellowshipped by Jw’s for reading forbidden books, and now you call me off topic. Be real. I am only pointing out that what you accuse the catholic church of doing, the arians do the same things in the same era’s. So, yes my pointing out that people are disfellowshipped from the watchtower for reading forbidden books so to speak is very much on topic if your claims are “on topic”.

I have no problem with both groups having a list of forbidden books, I am only pointing out that what you accuse others of, your “church” does the same thing or that fellow arians did the same thing in reference to killing people for their faith.

Daniel, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis on scripture.

The discussion about banned books was not started by me. I couldn’t care less if the Catholic Church bans books and excommunicates people who read them. Someone previously made the charge the WTS was bad for requesting people not read anti-JW books. I asked the person if they were concerned about the CC’s policy of banning LOTS of books and excommunicating those. The person said they would be off to read the links I provided and I haven’t seen comment back from them yet. If someone complains about a WTS practice, they should at least be concerned if their own church does something similar, don’t you think?

As for Arians being violent… they probably were. And so were the Trinitarian followers. My reading about the first several centuries after the apostles shows all sorts of violence and killing over disagreements of beliefs. It’s not clear to me at all who was showing the love Jesus said would identify his true disciples (John 13:35)

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

A. What is a person:

**Definition of person: "One who had substance, completeness, selfexistent, individuality and rationality.
Five tests to determine a person:
SUBSTANCE: being existence reality.
COMPLETENESS: that which is part doesn’t satisfy the definition (an arm)
SELFEXISTENT: continued by ones self, not by another: robot
INDIVIDUALITY: not some universal existence.
RATIONALITY: excludes the non*intellectual * rocks and plants **

If you really want to see the proofs follow the link,
bible.ca/trinity/trinity-holy-spirit-personality-deity.htm

 

[Turtullian]

Looks like you have a non-JW professor who would disagree with you:

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

The article is quoting Debuhn which you are doing but the article then gives reasons as to why Debuhn is biased. This is the logical fallacy of “stacking the deck” by presenting a source that on the surface appears to support your reasonings but in reality are opposite. Infact the article addresses Debuhn later on:

The second issue is, I think, quite clear. I believe BeDuhn has also stumbled on his own bias by allowing the use of “all [other]” in the NWT Colossians 1 passage. He says that, “All is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole” and that “The ‘other’ is assumed.” This would be true in many cases as he has given in the example of “the fig tree and all the trees” from Luke 21:29. (p. 84) As he points out, since the fig is also a tree, the second reference must be to all the other trees. But hyperbole cannot be assumed in all cases. In reading Acts 4:24 we could not rightly exclude anything in heaven, earth or sea as not being made by the Sovereign Lord. The same construction is used when the group prayed, “Sovereign Lord, you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them.” All of us would object to a reading which said, “you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the [other] things in them.” as if there was something which he did not make.

 

[mikeledes]

BibleSteve;2334221:

Looks like you have a non-JW professor who would disagree with you:

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

The article is quoting Debuhn which you are doing but the article then gives reasons as to why Debuhn is biased. This is the logical fallacy of “stacking the deck” by presenting a source that on the surface appears to support your reasonings but in reality are opposite. Infact the article addresses Debuhn later on:

Debuhn in debates with Trinitarians went so far as to concede that from his POV, the Gospels present two Gods and polytheism in stark contrast to judaism and the OT.



Unfortunately, JWs often have the tendency of using out of context quotes (i.e. Church fathers, historians, etc.) to support their claims. The average JW is probably unaware of this and thus takes the Watchtower’s interpretation as Gospel truth. But if they do the research, they’ll find that this is not necessarily true.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Further evidence against the idea

No those are characterzations of spirit. Spririt can “blow like the wind”

But the Holy Spirit also has a Will, and that is characteristic of personhood.

Hebrews 2:4
God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Acts 13, " I have called them"

1 Corinthians 12:11
But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (NASB)

He has a Mind,

Romans 8:27
And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will. (NIV)

Emotions,

grieves.

Ephesians 4:30
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (NIV)

Isaiah 63:10
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them. (NIV)

Spirit gives joy,

Luke 10: 21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” (NIV)

1 Thessalonians 1:6
You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.

He Teaches,

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (NIV)

He Testifies of Christ,

John 15:26
When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. (NIV)

He Convicts,

John 16:8
When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt [Or will expose the guilt of the world] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: (NIV)

He Leads.

Romans 8:14
Because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (NIV)

He Reveals Truth,

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

Strengthens and Encourages,

Acts 9:31
Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord. (NIV)

He Comforts:

John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (KJV)

Helps Us in our Weakness:

Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (NIV)

He prays,

Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (NIV)

Bears Witness or Testifies,

Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (KJV)
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. (NIV)

The Holy Spirit Forbids,

Acts 16:6-7
Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. (NIV)

Can be Lied to,

Acts 5:3
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? (NIV)

He Can be Blasphemed,

Matthew 12:31-32
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (NIV)

These are all charcteristics of personhood.

You are simply looking at the other characteristics of the Holy Spirit that are true of his nature, while ignoring the characterists of his personhood. I fully admit his charcteristics of being spirit.

 

[BibleSteve]

Turtullian;2335303:

Unfortunately, JWs often have the tendency of using out of context quotes (i.e. Church fathers, historians, etc.) to support their claims. The average JW is probably unaware of this and thus takes the Watchtower’s interpretation as Gospel truth. But if they do the research, they’ll find that this is not necessarily true.

God Bless,
Michael

Daniel makes a statement that NO ONE agrees with the NWT’s translation of Col 1.

I point out a professor who does, and so now the “out of context” brigade comes out.

Daniel simply made an incorrect statement to which I corrected.

No big deal folks.

 

[Turtullian]

mikeledes;2335352:

Daniel makes a statement that NO ONE agrees with the NWT’s translation of Col 1.

I point out a professor who does, and so now the “out of context” brigade comes out.

Daniel simply made an incorrect statement to which I corrected.

No big deal folks.

Beduhn (it seems either an arian or a polytheist) while debating with Catholic Apologist John Pacheco admitted that the NWT does indeed suffer from many errors and biasses.

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/beduhn.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

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

Interresting, have you ever read the literature of those so-called parralells of the trinity? We believe that there is only one God in three persons. And yet many if not all your so-called trinity examples are Three Gods which has no relation to our understanding of the trinity. You mistakenly think we use addition 1+1+1=1 when in fact, we are using multiplication with powers x^0 * y^0 * z^0 = 1.

Now, why would one conterfiet a three dollar bill?

I agree Satan’s counterfiets are for the purpose of decieving.

So, why does watchtower theology line up with Greber’s spiritualistic theology? And, our theology of Jesus has no true paralell in the occult, nor world religions?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

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.

No, not really read Hebrews 1, Col 1, and Phil 2 – all three passages teach that Jesus is superior to all creatures. You really should for example outline the book of Hebrews. It goes on to show that Jesus is superior to angels, moses, old covenant sacrafices, and so on. Those texts have the context of showing that Jeus is above all creation – “Name above all other names” and like that.

 

[mikeledes]

No, not really read Hebrews 1, Col 1, and Phil 2 – all three passages teach that Jesus is superior to all creatures. You really should for example outline the book of Hebrews. It goes on to show that Jesus is superior to angels, moses, old covenant sacrafices, and so on. Those texts have the context of showing that Jeus is above all creation – “Name above all other names” and like that.

I already responded to that “firstborn” argument. The text explains itself. I wonder if Steve is actually reading my posts.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here is the full explanation of “firstborn of creation” for those who missed it:

The “firstbborn of creation” is not a reference to the fact that Jesus was the first to be created. A text out of context is a pretext. If you actually read the passage, it explains what “firstborn of creation” means:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 BECAUSE by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

He is the firstborn of creation because it is through Him that all things were created, and hence he has preeminence over creation. By His death and ressurrection, he is also the “firstborn of the dead” and hence has preeminence over that as well.

Colossians 1:18-19

He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him

To be first is to have preeminence. “Firstborn” in this passage means to have a place of honor, preeminence over. For example, God made David “firstborn.”

Psalm 89:27

**27 Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn,
The most high of the kings of the earth. **

Jesus is firstborn over creation because all things came to be through him and thus, by right, he is preeminent over all creation. The creator always has preeminence over his creation. He is firstborn over the dead because by His death and resurrection he has defeated the forces of sin and death and thus has preeminence over them.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BibleSteve]

BibleSteve;2335377:

Beduhn (it seems either an arian or a polytheist) while debating with Catholic Apologist John Pacheco admitted that the NWT does indeed suffer from many errors and biasses.

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/beduhn.html

The whole point of his book is to review biases. He outlines biases in each and every translations reviewed in the book.

His conclusion? The NWT was the most accurate and had the least bias of any translation.

 

[mikeledes]

Turtullian;2335396:

The whole point of his book is to review biases. He outlines biases in each and every translations reviewed in the book.

His conclusion? The NWT was the most accurate and had the least bias of any translation.

And he is a very biased source. This is beside the point anyway. Colossians 1 explains itself.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BibleSteve]

I already responded to that “firstborn” argument. The text explains itself. I wonder if Steve is actually reading my posts.

God Bless,
Michael

No one has responded to my point that 30+ times “firstborn of…” is interpreted one single and consistent way.

When it comes to Jesus being “the firstborn of creation”… the standard and consistent interpretation isn’t followed.

That is injecting theological bias into the text.

 

[BibleSteve]

BibleSteve;2335470:

And he is a very biased source. This is beside the point anyway. Colossians 1 explains itself.

God Bless,
Michael

And you know this because?

He came to a conclusion you don’t like?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

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:

Greek Scholar Marvin Vincent:

Amen, only 30-40 post behind.

 

[Turtullian]

Turtullian;2335396:

The whole point of his book is to review biases. He outlines biases in each and every translations reviewed in the book.

His conclusion? The NWT was the most accurate and had the least bias of any translation.

He outlined that on major things the NWT is very inconsistent such as placing the Divine name outside quotations of the OT and inconsistently translating Proskuneo as obeisence rather than worship, that John 858 ought to be translated as "I was rather than “I wam”, the words of the last supper ought to be translate as “Means my body” rather than “is my body”

Simply put as far as the NWT was concerned Debuhn argued as inconsistent in it’s own arguementation on the above.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

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.

could you kindly prove this by starting some new threads, thanks

In fact, why not start with history of bible alone and christian connection.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Actually it is the opposite. I’ve presented a Bible only argument, while you have supported your view by quoting various imperfect men’s opinions.

There’s only about 30 times in the Bible where it says “firstborn of…”, so it’s easy to review each and every occurrance.

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.

“First born of Israel” part of Israel? Yes
“First born of Pharaoh” part of Pharoahs family? YES
“First born of the beasts”, part of the beasts? YES
“First born of man” part of the group called man? YES
“First born of your sons” Part of the son? YES
“Firstborn of the dead”? Was Jesus part of the dead? YES
“First born of Creation”? part of the Creation? Trinitarians want to say NO because of Theological Bias.

**That **is reading a theological belief into the text.

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.

Looks like you are a victim of a common word study fallacy. A word gains its meaning from its immediate context, not how it is used in other passages. Also, often the most frequent use in the Bible is not its primary use in Hebrew. I have been using Hebrew as a Jew for almost fifty years now.

I already, pointed you to the children of Sarah and Hagar, and Esau and Jacob. …

Besides, the Bible itself does NOT teach Bible Alone.

Exegetical Fallacies (by DA Carson)
WORD-STUDY FALLACIES: (condensed from Carson’s book)

1)The root fallacy – “pineapple” is not an apple growing on a pine

2)Semantic anachronism – dynamite is etymologically derived from “dunamis”, then, the idea of dynamite is read back into dunamis.

3)Semantic obsolescence – Is “head of the family” origin or source? It’s not so in Hellenistic Greek, only in classical Greek.

4)Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings – ‘The law’ refers to rabbinic tradition?

5)Careless appeal to background info – born of water and Spirit (water can be referred to sperm) so physical birth and spiritual birth? Purification by water and new spirit in Ezekiel 36:25-27.

1. Verbal parallelomania – John’s prologue is compared to other remote literature to prove dependency – Bultmann and Dodd?
2. Link of language and mentality – Ancient Hebrews unable to understand past, present and future because only two aspects in their language? False assumption about technical terms – ‘sanctification’ and ‘baptism of Spirit’

8)Problems with synonyms and componential analysis – agape and phileo?

9)Selective use of evidence - Hebrew knowing is experiential, not intellectual? Knowing God is obeying and loving others but also content in John 4:50, 5:47, 13:19, 17:21)

10)Unwarranted semantic disjunctions/restrictions – false either/or meanings. E.g. the headship of Jesus – either He as Head has authority to control and demand obedience OR as Head, He is source/origin and stoops to lift us up?

11)Unwarranted restriction of semantic field – Judaism is only a technical term for a sectarian exclusiveness against Hellenist and not religion of the Jews? This is my body? “IS” could mean Fulfillment, Resemblance, Cause, Attribute or identity?

12)Unwarranted broadening of semantic range – ‘church’ (universal?) in Acts 7:38

13)Problems relating to Semitic background of Greek NT – Methodologically irresponsible to read Hebrew word into Greek equivalent

**14)Neglect distinguishing peculiarities of a corpus – a fallacy that one NT writer uses a word (call/justification) with the same meaning as other NT writers **

15)Unwarranted linking of sense and reference – The meaning of words in a grammatically coherent array (Three is a prime number) is different from the theoretical referent of each word (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Berkeley)