What is your take on "Jehovah's Witnesses" sect?

[Dpoc41]

I had one knock on my door this morning, usually I dont answer to them and have asked them not to knock, but got caught out as I was expecting a package. It was an old African man and he handed me a leaflet saying the passover should only be celebrated once a year, and that they were the only ones who observed it properly. I asked him what had Charles Taze Russell appearing in the 19th century got to do with Jesus giving the keys to Peter and guiding the church etc. He replied “Apostates will arise in every age”, I hadnt the heart or the energy to tell him Russell founded the JWs, I shook his hand and said goodbye.

 

[Logically]

Also, I forgot to mention that the JW although claiming to follow “Jehovah’s” and Jesus Christ’s teaching that their is only One God, actually believe in two separate Gods. They do in fact teach that Jesus is a god, separate completely from “Jehovah.” … Are you as JW willing to say that Jesus is a false god, …???

John 1:1 was written in ancient Koine Greek, not modern English.

The Greek word applying to Jesus (the Word) in this verse is Θεός (theos) It can be translated “a god”, “divine” or “godlike” .

As apposed to τὸν Θεόν (ho theon) which is literally “the god.” and is who Jesus was “with” in the same verse. Obviously the Almighty God. The Father. Jehovah. (in English we usually leave off “the” and just add a capital G. “God.”)

Using the word “god” to describe Jesus often confuses an English reader because we know there is only one “god”. Does the scripture describe two?

Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render John 1:1 as “…and the Word was divine.”

Numerous translations (too many to list) use the more literal “a god.” The NWT included. Although less exact, maybe “Divine” or “godlike” is a better translation for an English reader. Less confusing.

What does “Divine” mean? I’ve heard people described as divine. I’ve heard cooking described as divine.

“Of or like God or a god:” is how the Oxford dictionary defines the word. “Divine”

“That which belongs to God or pertains to him, that which is godlike or heavenly.”

• is how the JW’s encyclopedia difines the word: “Divine.”

Is Jesus like God? Is he godlike or heavenly? Of course.

So much so that Colossians 1:15 described him as “…the image of the invisible God. The firstborn of creation.”

Does this make JW believers in multiple gods. No.
They believe Jesus is a mighty spirit creature.

 

[pacloc]

John 1:1 was written in ancient Koine Greek, not modern English.

The Greek word applying to Jesus in this verse is Θεός (theos) It can be translated “a god”, “divine” or “godlike” .

As apposed to τὸν Θεόν (ho theon) which is literally “the god.” and is who Jesus was “with” in the same verse.

Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render John 1:1 as “…and the Word was divine.”

Numerous translations (too many to list) use the more literal “a god.” The NWT included.

What does “Divine” mean? I’ve heard people described as divine. I’ve heard cooking described as divine.

“Of or like God or a god:” is how the Oxford dictionary defines the word. “Divine”

“That which belongs to God or pertains to him, that which is godlike or heavenly.”

• is how the JW’s encyclopedia difines the word: “Divine.”

Is Jesus like God? Is he godlike or heavenly? Of course.

So much so that Colossians 1:15 described him as “…the image of the invisible God. The firstborn of creation.”

Does this make JW believers in multiple gods. No.

Thank you for your response. There are just a few problems with your argument.

1. You used the same reasoning that I mentioned as not being adequate, that other non god things are described as gods. Cooking we would both agree is not a real God. Are you willing to say that Jesus is a false god, just as cooking is?
2. More importantly, you go into your reasoning based on a translation your governing body does not believe to be accurate. Your translation the NWT, doesn’t call him divine or god-like, but rather a god. Are you saying you do not agree with the NWT?

I would also like to mention how easily JW insult the idea of the Trinity because of the human nature that Christ had, and comments he said speaking from a human standpoint. You easily forget that JW believe that Jesus was once the creator of the universe and became man and spoke those same things. Every question you ask regarding phrases Jesus said demonstrating his “weakness” compared to the Father should be asked to the JW as well that believes that he was Michael the Archangel, the creator of the Heavens and Earth before. Just some food for thought.

 

[Logically]

… by all means, tell us what the differences are between Arians and JW’s. I have often wondered what the differences are. It would SEEM to me that your similarities in the belief of the deity of Christ would have you more fond of Arian than what you describe. Surly you view him as more in line with the JWs than any other Christian sect, right?

Peace!!!

Good question.

I went researching him in our WT library. Most references to him are just in a historical context. It seems not much of his works survived, and most of what is written about him is from his opposers. However in 1984 the WT addressed your question.

I quote:
“Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H.*M.Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1Corinthians 8:6.”

• end of quote.

So i guess the principle is: “All elephants are grey, but not everything that is grey is an elephant.”
All Arians don’t believe the Trinity - that doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t believe the trinity is an Arian.

I didn’t realize there were some church councils that accepted his view! Then that faction of belief became “un banned” and the official belief for a while under the next emperor!
It was centuries before those who followed the other councils got stamped out (violently) in some areas.
It all seems a very messed up and political feud that went on for hundreds of years. Constantine called it a “petty debate about words”. (one Bishop at Nicea ran over and smacked Arius in the face! ) No wonder the pagan Emperor stepped in and ruled one faction was right to get people to move on. It sounds more like a bunch of brawling schoolboys than a serious search for biblical truth!
.
Hardly the united, holy church that was to be “no part of the world” Jesus started.

 

[yogosans14]

Dont be fooled by their “clean cut goody good appearance” they are wolves like Jesus talked about. They spread the worst kinds of heresy, the damnable kind. I would know considering I attended their services for over 2-3 years. It was always tense because the rules and regulations of the JWs are very strict.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is Michael the archangel, the highest created being. This contradicts many Scriptures which clearly declare Jesus to be God (John 1:1,14, 8:58, 10:30). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe salvation is obtained by a combination of faith, good works, and obedience. This contradicts countless scriptures which declare salvation to be received by grace through faith (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the Trinity, believing Jesus to be a created being and the Holy Spirit to essentially be the inanimate power of God. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the concept of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and instead hold to a ransom theory, that Jesus’ death was a ransom payment for Adam’s sin.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses justify these unbiblical doctrines? First, they claim that the church has corrupted the Bible over the centuries; thus, they have re-translated the Bible into what they call the New World Translation. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society altered the text of the Bible to make it fit their false doctrine, rather than basing their doctrine on what the Bible actually teaches. The New World Translation has gone through numerous editions, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses discover more and more Scriptures that contradict their doctrines.

The Watchtower bases its beliefs and doctrines on the original and expanded teachings of Charles Taze Russell, Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford, and their successors. The governing body of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the only body in the cult that claims authority to interpret Scripture. In other words, what the governing body says concerning any scriptural passage is viewed as the last word, and independent thinking is strongly discouraged. This is in direct opposition to Paul’s admonition to Timothy (and to us as well) to study to be approved by God, so that we need not be ashamed as we correctly handle the Word of God. This admonition, found in 2 Timothy 2:15, is a clear instruction from God to each of His children to be like the Berean Christians, who searched the Scriptures daily to see if the things they were being taught lined up with the Word.

There is probably no religious group that is more faithful than the Jehovah’s Witnesses at getting their message out. Unfortunately, the message is full of distortions, deceptions, and false doctrine. May God open the eyes of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the truth of the gospel and the true teaching of God’s Word.

 

[Logically]

Thank you for your response. … Just some food for thought.

Food for thought it is. Thank you.

I spent an hour researching and writing that post. If none of it sank in, then I have nothing more to add on the debate.

All the best.

 

[yogosans14]

John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.” Notice that it says “God was the word.” This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that “a god was the word.” That wouldn’t make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.

“In beginning was the word . . . "
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
“and the word was with the God . . . "
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
“and God was the word.”–Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is " . . . and the Word was God” and not “and God was the word.” This is because if there is only one definite article (“ho”=“the”) in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative (“subject”) form (“theos” and “logos”), then the noun with the definite article (“ho”=“the”) is the subject. In this case “ho logos” means that “the word” is the subject of the clause. Therefore, " . . . the Word was God” is the correct translation and not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that Jesus is “a god” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.

Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called “a god” besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?

 

[Waynec]

Waynec;11877803:

Thanks for your reply.

Sorry, Do you mean 2 Peter 1:2? Or are you refering to the whole first two chapters of 2 Peter?

I see 2 Peter 1:2 says: “may undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you by accurate knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.”

So that scripture mentions both God and Jesus.
What am I missing. Do I have the right verse?

No My mistake. Thanks

2 Peter 2:1-2

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh, sorry. Verse 17.

John20:17. Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

So Jesus has a God, and he is the same one Mary has. = no Trinity.

Thanks for spotting that.

How about the 5 quotes treating the Trinity before a hundred years passed? Clearly in conflict with your claims that the doctrine did not exits for hundreds of years.

There is no mention of God being a Trinity in the Bible, and no mention of a mysterious “3 person in one God” until hundreds of years after the apostles had died.

 

[Waynec]

Good question.

I went researching him in our WT library. Most references to him are just in a historical context. It seems not much of his works survived, and most of what is written about him is from his opposers. However in 1984 the WT addressed your question.

I quote:
“Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H.*M.Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1Corinthians 8:6.”

• end of quote.

So i guess the principle is: “All elephants are grey, but not everything that is grey is an elephant.”
All Arians don’t believe the Trinity - that doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t believe the trinity is an Arian.

I didn’t realize there were some church councils that accepted his view! Then that faction of belief became “un banned” and the official belief for a while under the next emperor!
It was centuries before those who followed the other councils got stamped out (violently) in some areas.
It all seems a very messed up and political feud that went on for hundreds of years. Constantine called it a “petty debate about words”. (one Bishop at Nicea ran over and smacked Arius in the face! ) No wonder the pagan Emperor stepped in and ruled one faction was right to get people to move on. It sounds more like a bunch of brawling schoolboys than a serious search for biblical truth!
.
Hardly the united, holy church that was to be “no part of the world” Jesus started.

Can you prove your points using other publications than the Watchtower’s? I would think that they might be a little biased.

 

[Waynec]

Numerous translations (too many to list) use the more literal “a god.”

The NWT included. Although less exact, maybe “Divine” or “godlike” is a better translation for an English reader. Less confusing.

Please try to name a few. I only know of the NWT that does this. And I wonder if the translations that you might mention are still in use today. Thanks

 

[DelsonJacobs]

John 1:1 was written in ancient Koine Greek, not modern English.

The Greek word applying to Jesus (the Word) in this verse is Θεός (theos) It can be translated “a god”, “divine” or “godlike” .

As apposed to τὸν Θεόν (ho theon) which is literally “the god.” and is who Jesus was “with” in the same verse. Obviously the Almighty God. The Father. Jehovah. (in English we usually leave off “the” and just add a capital G. “God.”)

Using the word “god” to describe Jesus often confuses an English reader because we know there is only one “god”. Does the scripture describe two?

Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render John 1:1 as “…and the Word was divine.”

Numerous translations (too many to list) use the more literal “a god.” The NWT included. Although less exact, maybe “Divine” or “godlike” is a better translation for an English reader. Less confusing.

I have been asked to return and to refute this and bring the thread back on track. My take on the JW sect can be displayed with this one text and how they dishonestly translate it.

Most of you know I am a Jewish Catholic, and as such I read and speak both Hebrew and koine Greek. Both languages are part of my culture. I don’t need to rely on a translation of Scripture as a result.

John 1:1 reads as follows in the koine Greek:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

Literally, it says “In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was toward the God and God was the Word.”

There are two appearances of “God” in this verse. The first time it appears it has the definite article “the”: τὸν Θεόν

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

The second time it is without the definite article: Θεὸς

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

Both τὸν Θεόν (ton theon) and Θεὸς (theos) are the same word. The reason for the change of the last letter is only due to the syntax rules. Greek is an inflectional language, and that means you add letters, and sometimes prefixes and suffixes to nouns depending on what is required by the rules of the language.

The Witnesses dishonestly claim that because Θεὸς appears the second time in the verse without the article “the” that it should be translated as “a god.” Which is why they translate it as so in their New World Translation:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

“When the word Θεὸς appears without the definite article,” the JWs claim, “then one must translate the expression as ‘a god.’” But this is a lie.

You see, the author of this gospel has a habit of writing the word “God” without the definite article through this gospel. In fact, this happens several times in the first chapter of John. I’ve highlighted these occurrences below with the way the New World Translation renders them.

John 1:6

Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ

There came a man who was sent as a representative of God

John 1:12

ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children

John 1:13b

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ’ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν

were born, not … from man’s will, but from God

Did you notice that the only time the Witnesses translate Θεός without the article as “a god” is John 1:1? But every other time Θεός appears without the article they translate it as “God” with a capital “G.” Why?

There is no reason. The translators did this betting that the rank-and-file Witnesses would never be able to read Greek for themselves and see that they didn’t follow any rule of Greek to produce their unique rendering. The New World Translation translators rendered Θεός without the definite article as “God” in verses 6, 12, and 13, but they didn’t in verse 1.

The reason for this lack of inconsistency?

Simple. They don’t want to believe that Jesus Christ is God. So they provide a translation that is faulty. At the same time they discourage their members from going to college and learning the ancient languages for themselves.

Why discourage higher learning? Because Greek is part of standard education at many universities. And if you learn Greek, then you will learn that the New World Translation is a lie.

So I put to you out there who can see this for yourselves. What do you think of a religion that has done this to the inspired Word of God? Even if you don’t believe in God or the Bible, what do you think of the rendering they choose and the fact that they don’t want people to get an education past high school?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

As apposed to τὸν Θεόν (ho theon) which is literally “the god.”

And for the record, τὸν Θεόν is not “ho theon” but “ton theon.” This letter “ν” is the Greek letter Nu, which corresponds to our “N.” The word also begins with a Tau, or “T.” The word “ho” is spelled ὁ.

“Ho theon” would be spelled ὁ Θεόν.

One should know Greek before teaching Greek. And if you don’t know Greek you are not in a position to say how Scripture should be translated.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

John 1:1 was written in ancient Koine Greek, not modern English.

The Greek word applying to Jesus (the Word) in this verse is Θεός (theos) It can be translated “a god”, “divine” or “godlike” .

As apposed to τὸν Θεόν (ho theon) which is literally “the god.” and is who Jesus was “with” in the same verse. Obviously the Almighty God. The Father. Jehovah. (in English we usually leave off “the” and just add a capital G. “God.”)

Using the word “god” to describe Jesus often confuses an English reader because we know there is only one “god”. Does the scripture describe two?

Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render John 1:1 as “…and the Word was divine.”

Numerous translations (too many to list) use the more literal “a god.” The NWT included. Although less exact, maybe “Divine” or “godlike” is a better translation for an English reader. Less confusing.

What does “Divine” mean? I’ve heard people described as divine. I’ve heard cooking described as divine.

“Of or like God or a god:” is how the Oxford dictionary defines the word. “Divine”

“That which belongs to God or pertains to him, that which is godlike or heavenly.”

• is how the JW’s encyclopedia difines the word: “Divine.”

Is Jesus like God? Is he godlike or heavenly? Of course.

So much so that Colossians 1:15 described him as “…the image of the invisible God. The firstborn of creation.”

Does this make JW believers in multiple gods. No.
They believe Jesus is a mighty spirit creature.

Yes interesting translation that one? Numerous translations to many to list hey? uhmm?
I wonder why the Greek Orthodox Church doesn’t translate it that way? after all they invented the language?
However it does create quite a lot of room to move for the Governing Body to put their interpretation on the identity of who exactly the “a god” actually is. And it is quite interesting that if we read the Old Testament creation story “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and compare it to the orthodox translation of Jn1;1-4 there is really no need for any confusion because we are told both times that it is God who created.
One would almost think that the seamless way that these two verses weave together that this was the original authors intent. But when we use the NWT of Jn1;1-4 all of a sudden the verses are in disharmony now we need an elaborate method of interpretation to explain the discord of these two verses. Who is this “a god”? not to worry the Governing Body can explain this for us, and they do with a complex, confusing, clumsy and awkward barn dance through scripture to come up with a sort of company CEO taking instructions from God to administer the creative process? Confused? yes I am because that means until the Gospel of John was written the chosen people were under a miss conception and the first words of the Bible Gen1:1 are not true and can not be read literally? Not to worry obviously God had been waiting for Charles Taze Russell to come along before explaining these deeper truths.
Now the confusion does not end there, we still have to identify this now mysterious CEO or as the JW likes to say master craftsman of God? And low and behold he is not “a god” at all but is actually an Angel? I wonder why John did not just tell us that? after all he was one of the apostles and an inspired writer of Scripture surly he must of known? Ahh here again God must have been waiting for Mr CZR before revealing this eternal truth to the world, I mean why would God reveal it to the apostles when he had Charlie there waiting in the wings to bring this truth to the world nearly 2000 years later?
Ahh but then again maybe Mr Russell was not the first to try and deceive the faithful with these fanciful man made theories about the identity of our Lord and Saviour it would appear that St Paul had a similar problem in Colossia.
Col 2:18 *Let no man seduce you, willing in humility and religion of Angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh.

 

[adf417]

I went researching him in our WT library. Most references to him are just in a historical context. It seems not much of his works survived, and most of what is written about him is from his opposers. However in 1984 the WT addressed your question.

I quote:
“Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H.*M.Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1Corinthians 8:6.”

• end of quote

So i guess the principle is: “All elephants are grey, but not everything that is grey is an elephant.”
All Arians don’t believe the Trinity - that doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t believe the trinity is an Arian.

Thank you for clearing up the differences for me. Would you say JWs are more close to Arian theology than any other Christian theology?

I didn’t realize there were some church councils that accepted his view! Then that faction of belief became “un banned” and the official belief for a while under the next emperor!
It was centuries before those who followed the other councils got stamped out (violently) in some areas.
It all seems a very messed up and political feud that went on for hundreds of years. Constantine called it a “petty debate about words”. (one Bishop at Nicea ran over and smacked Arius in the face! ) No wonder the pagan Emperor stepped in and ruled one faction was right to get people to move on. It sounds more like a bunch of brawling schoolboys than a serious search for biblical truth!
.
Hardly the united, holy church that was to be “no part of the world” Jesus started. :confused

This is interesting - a JW referencing church councils as historical data. I’m sorry if I overstep here but I thought JWs don’t/didn’t care about any church council happenings. Do you get to pick and choose what is actual fact and what is not in the early councils, say the canon? Please forgive me for viewing your take on the council information above as hogwash. Please refrain form quoting things out of context, even if it does originate from your only resource, unless as I said before, you would not mind if I quote from other sources that the JW organization is an evil cult.

If suggest if you are going to quote council information then go to the source, otherwise don’t complain about it when it happens the other way. But then again, why is it that the Catholic Church (church councils and other writing) has so much more information on Arian than the “one true church” that they would come to us for a deeper understand of him? Hmmmm!

Peace!!!

 

[yogosans14]

I’m curious. Why is a JW on a CATHOLIC FORUM? There leaders in brooklyn new york believe Catholics to be “worldy” and will die at Armageddon. They do not allow them to even associate with Catholics so any JW on here is clearly going again what there leaders say.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Good question.

I went researching him in our WT library. Most references to him are just in a historical context. It seems not much of his works survived, and most of what is written about him is from his opposers. However in 1984 the WT addressed your question.

I quote:
“Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H.*M.Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1Corinthians 8:6.”

• end of quote.

So i guess the principle is: “All elephants are grey, but not everything that is grey is an elephant.”
All Arians don’t believe the Trinity - that doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t believe the trinity is an Arian.

I didn’t realize there were some church councils that accepted his view! Then that faction of belief became “un banned” and the official belief for a while under the next emperor!
It was centuries before those who followed the other councils got stamped out (violently) in some areas.
It all seems a very messed up and political feud that went on for hundreds of years. Constantine called it a “petty debate about words”. (one Bishop at Nicea ran over and smacked Arius in the face! ) No wonder the pagan Emperor stepped in and ruled one faction was right to get people to move on. It sounds more like a bunch of brawling schoolboys than a serious search for biblical truth!
.
Hardly the united, holy church that was to be “no part of the world” Jesus started.

Logically! This is stuff and nonsense! Are the Governing Body and there for JW’s actually saying that they can fully comprehend God? and that God can be fully revealed through a created being? If so they are even more delusional than I thought.
The only real difference between JW theology and Arian theology is that Arius did not ever identify the first of all created beings as an Arc Angel. We had to wait for Charles Taze to receive that particular pearl of wisdom.

 

[adf417]

I have been asked to return and to refute this and bring the thread back on track. My take on the JW sect can be displayed with this one text and how they dishonestly translate it.

…So I put to you out there who can see this for yourselves. What do you think of a religion that has done this to the inspired Word of God? Even if you don’t believe in God or the Bible, what do you think of the rendering they choose and the fact that they don’t want people to get an education past high school?

Welcome back DJ and thank you for this fine work sir.

I wonder how many times can we reinvent this wheel before God comes in His Glory?

 

[Miserissima]

I have been asked to return and to refute this and bring the thread back on track. My take on the JW sect can be displayed with this one text and how they dishonestly translate it.

Most of you know I am a Jewish Catholic, and as such I read and speak both Hebrew and koine Greek. Both languages are part of my culture. I don’t need to rely on a translation of Scripture as a result.

John 1:1 reads as follows in the koine Greek:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

Literally, it says “In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was toward the God and God was the Word.”

There are two appearances of “God” in this verse. The first time it appears it has the definite article “the”: τὸν Θεόν

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

The second time it is without the definite article: Θεὸς

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

Both τὸν Θεόν (ton theon) and Θεὸς (theos) are the same word. The reason for the change of the last letter is only due to the syntax rules. Greek is an inflectional language, and that means you add letters, and sometimes prefixes and suffixes to nouns depending on what is required by the rules of the language.

The Witnesses dishonestly claim that because Θεὸς appears the second time in the verse without the article “the” that it should be translated as “a god.” Which is why they translate it as so in their New World Translation:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

“When the word Θεὸς appears without the definite article,” the JWs claim, “then one must translate the expression as ‘a god.’” But this is a lie.

You see, the author of this gospel has a habit of writing the word “God” without the definite article through this gospel. In fact, this happens several times in the first chapter of John. I’ve highlighted these occurrences below with the way the New World Translation renders them.

John 1:6

Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ

There came a man who was sent as a representative of God

John 1:12

ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children

John 1:13b

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ’ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν

were born, not … from man’s will, but from God

Did you notice that the only time the Witnesses translate Θεός without the article as “a god” is John 1:1? But every other time Θεός appears without the article they translate it as “God” with a capital “G.” Why?

There is no reason. The translators did this betting that the rank-and-file Witnesses would never be able to read Greek for themselves and see that they didn’t follow any rule of Greek to produce their unique rendering. The New World Translation translators rendered Θεός without the definite article as “God” in verses 6, 12, and 13, but they didn’t in verse 1.

The reason for this lack of inconsistency?

Simple. They don’t want to believe that Jesus Christ is God. So they provide a translation that is faulty. At the same time they discourage their members from going to college and learning the ancient languages for themselves.

Why discourage higher learning? Because Greek is part of standard education at many universities. And if you learn Greek, then you will learn that the New World Translation is a lie.

So I put to you out there who can see this for yourselves. What do you think of a religion that has done this to the inspired Word of God? Even if you don’t believe in God or the Bible, what do you think of the rendering they choose and the fact that they don’t want people to get an education past high school?

:bowdown:
I am printing this post and making twenty copies tomorrow, keeping them by my front door. Thank you!

 

[PaulDupre1]

Me too!