First of all, never argue based on their “New World” translation. The (anonymous) “translators” literally desecrated it by changing words and meanings throughout (just found one example here). Argue based on the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, the most ancient version (of which direct translations, I think, are the Douay-Rheims and the New Jerusalem, but I could me mistaken) . They won’t accept it - of course - but you have to stand by the side of truth.
They argue that since the Lord has an archangel’s voice, he IS the archangel. Of course, that makes as much sense as to say that since he has God’s trumpet, he is God. That is, neither of the two justify the conclusion.
What did he believe? That Jesus was Lord AND God.
I do believe that in the scripture you are referring to, “sons of God” is actually referring to angels in this 1 instance. I could easily be wrong but I do remember reading that and having to think on it for a while due to the context and I believe that is the conclusion I reached (could be wrong about it even being the conclusion I reached). Even so, it would not support their argument. Sons of God = us Son of God = Jesus. Our words are very primitive which is probably the reason for confusion.
Ask them if worshipping someone other than God is a sin, than why would God command it?
It should not be surprising that Christ did not call him a liar. They would say that Satan did not lie and that Jesus knew that Satan had that power and authority from God. That has no basis whatsoever. On the other hand, we can argue that Jesus already knew that Satan was “a liar and father of all lies” and that “there is no truth in him”. That Jesus did not even bother to rebuke Him on such a big lie, but simply and straightforwardly said:
While we cannot argue that the devil has authority over those who have chosen him between the two masters, we must also keep in mind the words of Christ: “now the prince of this world will be cast out” and “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth”.
Yep, a little
It should not be surprising that Christ did not call him a liar. They would say that Satan did not lie and that Jesus knew that Satan had that power and authority from God. That has no basis whatsoever. On the other hand, we can argue that Jesus already knew that Satan was “a liar and father of all lies” and that “there is no truth in him”. That Jesus did not even bother to rebuke Him on such a big lie, but simply and straightforwardly said:
While we cannot argue against the fact that the devil has some degree of authority over those who have chosen him between the two masters, we must also keep in mind the words of Christ: “now the prince of this world will be cast out” and “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth”.
The sons of God seem to be the sons of Seth (son of Adam). The daughters of men on the other hand are the descendants of Cain. Seth’s line was faithful (for a while); Cain’s line was not. The Bible is talking about intermarriage here, a theme which extends throughout the OT.
Well I do not see how whether or not he was given authority from the Father to offer that to the Son at that time is relevant to the conversation.Yep, a little
Here’s my reply on this, written time ago for a former Catholic - now JW.
Their strongest point is that Satan offered all the kingdoms to Christ. They argue that not only Satan had that authority back then, but that he still has it even after the resurrection of the Lord.
However, already St. Jerome (347-420), first translator of the Bible, explained that this was never so:
It should not be surprising that Christ did not call him a liar. They would say that Satan did not lie and that Jesus knew that Satan had that power and authority from God. That has no basis whatsoever. On the other hand, we can argue that Jesus already knew that Satan was “a liar and father of all lies” and that “there is no truth in him”. That Jesus did not even bother to rebuke Him on such a big lie, but simply and straightforwardly said:
While we cannot argue against the fact that the devil has some degree of authority over those who have chosen him between the two masters, we must also keep in mind the words of Christ: “now the prince of this world will be cast out” and “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth”.
Indeed, it was s. Thomas Aquinas who, criticizing Manicheism (an old heresy that stated that Satan was the lord of all visible things - reminds you of anyone?), wrote that the title “prince of the world” was “not due to a natural dominion of his, but by usurpation: for worldly men, despising the true Lord, submit to him.”
Furthermore, he cannot have such authority on those who are born of water and spirit in Christ, for those are incorporated into the mystical body of Christ (1 Cor 12, Eph, 4) and Satan, we know, has no authority over Him (Jn 14:30). Of course, Christians can lose that “state of grace” and fall into the clasp of the adversary, yet all men - Christian and non-Christian alike - have the right to appeal to Christ’s salvation in order to repent and return in the Lord’s way - because it is a scriptural truth that Christ died for all, though for the salvation of many: a many that by its nature is not infinite, yet has no upper limit.
Christians are “in the world” but “not of the world”. However, if they are in the world, and if they can rightfully call themselves servants of the Lord, and have received authority over Satan himself (“in my name they will expel demons”) how could Satan be the “ruler of the world” and at the same time be rebuked and driven away by those who are supposed to be his subjects? “* how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man?*” Indeed, " if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you", and even if the majority of us will never exercise this authority, there is another truth that we experience daily: “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you”.
Indeed, I find it a most interesting fact that not only they deny the fundamental truths (the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, anything about the Blessed Virgin, the Cross) but they profoundly oppose the Catholic Church, say there is no such thing as hell or punishment of any sort for the evildoers, and claim that Satan is the ruler of the world.
It is important to understand that when Jesus says “Ye are gods,” he is not speaking about the divine nature of human beings. The Hebrew understanding of “gods” in Psalm 82 is in reference to human judges not to divinity. There are other places in scripture where one is referred to as a “god” due to his official capacity, such as a judge, which was viewed as a divine administration. The Psalm continues: “But you shall die like men and fall like any of the princes.”
I just can’t get my head around the idea that they would use the same word they use for God as they do for human judges.
The sons of God are indeed the Angels created by God. This JW is probably trying to tie together the “sons of God” and Jesus who is called the “Son of God.” This doesn’t really benefit them in any way, because Jesus alone is called the Son of God in a very distinct way, it’s not as if he ever says he is one of the “sons of God.”
Well Jesus addressed it quite specifically. I gave you the scriptural references. What would make this more clear to you? Take a look at Exodus 7:1: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” This use of the word “god” was used in reference to prophets. It was a term of authority implying a divine administration; i.e. judges, prophets, kings, etc. This might offend our sensibilities today, but they understood the difference between a “god” and “God”. It is simply a matter of word usage, not a matter of theology.
Indeed.