John 1:1, according to the original unbiased Greek language usage, DISTINGUISHES Christ from the Father NOT just in terms of "Person" but also in terms of "theos". that's the point that is generally obscured in most English translations of the Bible (put together by biased trinitarians, so duhh) In other words, Christ the Logos is called INDEFINITE "theos" or an INdefinite "God", without the definite article "the" in front of it (or the Greek "ho"), like the Father CLEARLY is all the time. The Father in John 1:1 is called THE GOD, "HO Theos". now if Christ and the Father are literally the same exact Absolute God, then why use a lesser term and a more INdefinite word for "god" in Greek, for the pre-existent Christ? But nevertheless Jesus is "God", but not the Very Absolute Unbegotten God, like His Father is. The Father is Jesus' own God. Jesus worships His Father as His own God. Just as a "Man"? But also before, during, and after He came down to earth as well? "I ALWAYS do My Father's Will". subordination, people. non-equality. The Father is the Head and Sovereign of everything. Jesus answers to His Father. The Father answers to no one. Wake up. But Jesus is "God" and is "worshipped" in a BROAD sense. Jesus is "God" over the circumstances. Just like Moses and Elijah and Angels, but only to a much higher degree. JWs are not "polytheists" but hold Scripturally that there is ONE SUPREME ALMIGHTY ABSOLUTE GOD, the Father of Christ. The fact is that nowhere in the New Testament is Christ clearly unambiguously called "THE God" or "HO Theos", but the Father clearly irrefutably is. The original Greek and language words need to be considered. But it needs to be understood that Biblically (and Protestantism generally refuses to see this fact) that there are "gods" in the Bible not necessarily "false", but are in a broad sense. others are called 'gods' (and the Scripture cannot be broken) in the Bible (John 10:34,35), Jewish Kings and Judges, (Psalm 82:6; 82:1; 95:3) Angels (Hebrews 2:7; Psalm 8:5 original Hebrew "Elohim" for angels--gods), and Moses was called GOD Elohim, the very same term used for Jehovah !!! (Exodus 7:1). and exclusive "latriea" only clearly goes to God the Father in the New Testament, never clearly unambiguously to the Son. only the broader "proskyneo" in the New Testament goes properly to both the Father and Son, for "worship" in the broader sense, which in the Old Testament went even to King David right alongside Jehovah !!!! (See 1 Chronicles 29:20; 2 Chronicles 24:17) Christ never clearly receives the high "latreia" in the Greek "New Testament" like His Father does, not even in Revelation. and what about Revelation 5:13? does that prove the same exact degree of "worship" in the argument of strict "latriea"??? where do you see the word "worship" or "sacred service" or "serve" or "latriea" in Revelation 5:13???? again, it's called trinitarian EISegesis, reading things INTO texts, that are not actually there. Because "blessing and honor and glory" are properly given to the Father and Son, to God and the Lamb, that means in your minds that "latriea" is also given to the Son????? can we say "grasping at straws"? ayayaya) but to respond to what you said before, I actually know who Jesus Christ really is: THE PRE-EXISTENT ONLY-BEGOTTEN DIVINE FIRST-BEGOTTEN SON OF THE DIVINE LIVING ALMIGHTY TRUE GOD, The Word and Wisdom, and "Angel of the LORD" who led the Israelites in the wilderness, and who has "God's Name within Him," the Highest Messenger and Angel of God "Who Is Like God", through Whom everything was created by the Father, God's Beloved Son and Messiah and Appointed Savior and Prince, who came down as a perfect sinless man, to glorify the Father, and redeem sinners, and to save "all those obeying Him." and without Whom THERE IS NO SALVATION OR HOPE !!!!! no hope out of death or the grave or the Lake of Fire. the Lord Jesus Christ. The ONLY way to Almighty God and to everlasting life and health and peace and happiness. well, that's it in a nutshell, basically. and even if you did actually take the time to read every word in my other email to you (which I tend to doubt you actually did), the point is that people generally believe what they WANT to believe, see what they WANT to see, and ignore what they WANT to ignore, not necessarily what the real hard cold unbiased rude and stubborn facts actually support. I will say this. AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE FOR THE DOCTRINE OF A CO-EQUAL TRINITY. Let's face it. The Scriptures show that the Father, Son, and Spirit made the universe (can we get an Amen to that?), and are responsible for salvation, redemption, justification, and sanctification. Nobody really doubts or denies that the Holy Scriptures teach these things. But human nature being what it is, and of course the subtle devices, designs, and contaminations of Satan the Devil thrown in, people tend to go BEYOND what is actually set down, for emotional reasons, traditional reasons, and Adamic silliness, etc. Can you deny that fact in general? The real question is does the Holy Bible (especially the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS) really truly unambigously teach and say that the Son is actually literally equal with God the Father in every single thing? And does the Bible show UNAMBIGUOUSLY and clearly that the exclusive term "latriea" is properly and expressly and irrefutably given to the Son as well as to the Father? The HONEST answer is No. Not necessarily what I personally want the Bible to say or not say, but what it actually really honestly genuinely does say and say not. In fact, it would suit me just fine if the Bible taught clearly that Jesus was literaly Almighty God in the same Absolute way that God the Father Jehovah is. It would save me headaches and nonsense. And I admit that that notion, in a way, IS more romantic and emotionally appealing. In other words, that it was not just God's Firstborn that came down to die for us, but actually God Almighty Himself that came down to die for us and save fallen man. Yes, that idea has an emotional appeal that I would not mind for myself. But I have to be intellectualy honest and unbiased and accurate and true to things. The Council of Nicea was a godless mess, presided and decided by a corrupt pagan emperor, and heretics and neo-Platonists, and Scripture-distorters. I don't agree with everything that Arius said or taught either. I'm considered more a SEMI-Arian (if you want to use those terms) than an Arian. But whatever. If the Scriptures taught the Athanasian Creed or the Nicene Creed (or at least very close to it) then I'd whole-heartedly follow and believe it. But sadly, the inspired Bible does NOT so clearly state those man-made ideas and credal concepts. It simply doesn't. The Supremacy of God the Father is always upheld and secured in the Bible. The Bible really teaches the absolute sovereignty and supreme Godship of the Heavenly Father alone, EVEN OVER HIS SON !!! (John 14:28; 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:3; Revelation 3:12-14, etc.) You don't really know me or what I have investigated or researched. I LOOKED INTO ALL ANGLES, ALL SIDES, AND ALL VIEWPOINTS, before deciding. I had given an open mind and a careful and fair consideration to the co-equal trinitarian arguments and apologists and expositers. For real I did. (I have soooo many books and tapes that argue for the trinity and the co-equal deity of Christ. So much material. The Athanasians and their arguments and beliefs and expositions.) And I looked at the Oneness Modalist Sabellian side of the argument, as well the Arian view and Semi-Arian view, and Eusebian view, Unitarian, JW, Russell, etc.) I heard all sides of this tale. This issue that the Devil has so muddied and distorted, it's like not funny. The hard fact, again, is that "latriea" is given to the God (the Father) in the Bible, onlyyyy. And to say so dogmatically and moronically and without real good foundation that in Revelation 22:3 it just HAS to be referring to the Lord Jesus, instead of only to God His Father, is not only annoying, but twisted and sick, when you take into real consideration THAT EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE HOLY BIBLE, the exclusive "latriea" is unambiguously and only given to the Almighty Father. I already went to the three solid reasons why Revelation 22:3 could NOT be referring to the Son (or the Father and Son) but rather to the Father only. again, just to reiterate quickly. (A) the Father was mentioned right there in the very same sentence, and (B) a singular pronoun was used instead of plural pronoun "them", like could have been as in "and THEIR wrath has come" Rev 6:17 NIV, ESV, NASB , NWT, and (C) EVERY OTHER OCCURENCE IN THE HOLY BIBLE (ESPECIALLY THE "New Testament") WHERE THE GREEK EXCLUSIVE WORD "LATRIEA" OCCURS, IT IS ONLY IN REFERENCE TO GOD THE FATHER, UNAMBIGUOUSLY AND CLEARLY AND IRREFUTABLY !!!!!!!!!!! I hope that YOU really get to know who the real Jesus of Scripture truly is. GOD'S TRUE SON, BEGOTTEN AND PRODUCED DIRECTLY BY GOD THE FATHER, BEFORE AGES, AND WHO BECAME A PERFECT SINLESS AND HOLY MAN, AS THE MESSIAH OF ISRAEL, AND HOLY PRINCE, NO MORE AND NO LESS, AND TO BE OUR PASSOVER LAMB AND RANSOM SACRIFICE FOR CONDEMNED SINNERS, AND TO SANCTIFY HIS HEAVENLY FATHER'S DIVINE NAME, AND TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM AND OF GRACE. God's True Firstborn Son. Not some "figurative" Son, or some mystical trinitarian convoluted confusing "son", but a true begotten and brought forth Son, and who made the heavens and the earth, at the bidding and in the service of God, with the materials supplied by God the Father, and at His direction and supreme charge. If anything I just wrote is not really Scriptural, then don't just assert that it's not altogether Scriptural, buddy, BUT PROVE IT CHAPTER AND VERSE. Otherwise, anything you say rings sooooo hollow. I could show you Verse after Verse, unadulterated, that supports everything I just wrote. (just like you have many people, like Charles Stanely the wacko, pushing the non-Scriptural demon-inspired idea of unconditional "eternal security" or "once saved always saved" no matter what a person does or doesn't do, and regardless of James 2 and A HOST of different Verses in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles and Revelation that "eternal security" is conditioned on faithfulness and obedience to known Truths --Romans, 1 Corinthians, Mathew, etc--because it's "feel good" religion and emotionally appealing, and it's what a person WANTS to believe, rather than what the REAL Biblical data support and teach and indicate. The willfully stubborn will simply not want to see all the Verses and comparisons and cross-references and true unbiased meanings and clear points of Verses of Scripture. The Bible was written in such a way so as to test men's hearts. God knew that there would be this crap. To separate the men from the boys. Who had the guts to stick up for REAL UNADULTERATED UNPOPULAR BIBLE TRUTHS AND FACTS, regardless of cockeyed "church councils" or partially true partially false and dopey "church creeds and confessions" or "historic positions" and emotional "traditions" of men and man-made corrupted churches, and popular beliefs, AND regardless of what men around them would think or say about them. The pure Truth is not popular in a demon-controlled world. And Satan is crafty. And subtle. One big thing he's pulled off is having people think that calling Christ Almighty God in the same sense as the Father, and confusing co-equal co-eternal non-sensical "Trinity" is bringing praise and honor to Christ, and on the surface it seems so. Mixing truth with lies and distortions and extremism and exaggerations. And the Devil has been laughing his ass off for centuries now. Ever since around the time demonized Constantine and the arch-heretic Athanasius presided over that godless mess, called the Council of Nicea, in 325 C.E. A Roman Catholic council. If you're intellectually and historically honest, the trinity doctrine is actually a Roman Catholic doctrine and heresy. Which ostensibly brings honor to Christ, but actualy DIShonors both Him and the Father, since it contradicts and confuses what both of Them believe and teach, and denies the true honest and factual reality about Them. The Father is truly greater than the Son, as Christ Himself confessed, WITHOUT qualifications about "manhood only." Jesus called the Father "My God." The Father calls NO BODY "My God." The Father is SUPREME, buddy. (John 14:28; John 17; John 20:17) The Trinity doctrine contradicts our Lord's words. Tsk Tsk Tsk. Again, IF the Holy Bible really clearly unambiguously Athanasianism and real credal Trinitarianism--that Almighty God was actually three co-equal co-eternal and con-substantial (a Sabellian term by the way) Persons con-joined in One Supreme Being--and that Jesus Christ was actually literally truly equal with His Father in every single thing, and co-eternal with Him, THEN I WOULD BELIEVE AND PREACH IT. But I don't find such clear undeniable unambiguous things in there. And don't give me this gas about "oh you can't believe it unless you have the Holy Spirit and faith" blah blah blah. Spare me that retarded line. It's weak and silly. Anyway, that's basically it. Everything I've said has NOT been refuted one iota, either logically or Biblically. So I said (actually what God's Word says) still stands. May God help you and open your eyes and heart and save you from your sins and issues, and hopefully you'll get right with Him. I don't wish anything bad on anybody. May the Lord keep you, and good day. (if you wanna respond, please do so.) G.R.
JW's: Polytheists?
by jstalin 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
RU Saved
Sweetscholar,
I differ with you on this subject. Some verses do not use the definite article ho "the" in all cases pertaining to God like you stated. An example is Luke 20:38, where we read of Jehovah, "He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living" (NWT, emphasis added).
If the Greek work for God (theos) can be used of Jehovah without a definite article in New Testament passages like Luke 20:38, doesn't this undermine the Watchtower argument that Jesus is a lesser god because the definite article is not used with theos in John 1:1?
If we translate other passages in the New Testament the way Jehovah Witnesses translate John 1:1, we come out with some very strange-reading verses indeed. Matthew 5:9 is an example: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of a god" (instead of "sons of God"). Likewise, the rule of consistency would force us to translate John 1:6, "There came a man who was sent from a god" (instead of "sent from God"). We would also have to translate John 1:18, "No one has ever seen a god" (instead of "seen God").
Let one examine these passages where the article is not used with theos and see if the rendering 'a god' makes sense (Matt. 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; 2:40; John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Rom. 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Cor. 1:30; 15:10; Phil. 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1.
Lets take it a step further. Is Jesus a true God or a false god? As I am aware of, all the gods in the Bible that do not refer to Jehovah are false gods. But if he a true God, that is, one of the three persons in one God, then that violates what JW believe. Which on is it?
Please correct me if I am wrong. Peace and Love.
-
RU Saved
One more thing. I believe you said that the definite article Ho is always used in reference to Jehovah and not Jesus. I believe you are mistaken. Please look at John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" The verse reads literally from the Greek, "The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me." Clearly, Christ is just as much God as the Father is. Other examples of ho theos ("the God") being used of Christ include Matthew 1:23 and Hebrews 1:8. We see again, then, that the same words used of the Father's deity are used in reference to Jesus' deity.
If theos ("God") with the definite article ho ("the") is used in the New Testament of Jesus Christ just as it is used of Jehovah -God, then doesn't this mean Jesus is just as much God as the Father is?
-
RU Saved
Regaurding the fact that you said Jesus was an angle. Please read the first chapter of Hebrews. The whole focus of Hebrews 1-3 is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus Christ-- including His superiority over the prophets (1:1-4), the angels (1:5-2:18), and Moses (3:1-6).
In Hebrews 1:5, we are told that no angel can ever be called God's son: "To which of the angels did He [God] ever say, 'thou art My Son...'?" Since Jesus is the Son of God, and since no angel can ever be called God's Son, then Jesus cannot possibly be the archangel Michael.
If no angel can ever be called God's Son (Hebrews 1:5)---and if Jesus is in fact the Son of God -----then doesn't this mean that Jesus cannot be the archangel Michael?
-
Wasanelder Once
I suppose if you take into account the teaching of JW's that Satan caused the temptation in the garden and eventually set before Adam the opportunity to kill off all his offspring due to sin, that makes him the biggest murderer. Jehovah is just flashier.
W.Once
-
jstalin
Sweetscholar - I appreciate your reply, but it is difficult to read because of the lack of usage of paragraphs. Could you summarize the argument you are making, while at the same time addressing RU Saved's points?
-
metatron
Are JW's polytheists? No, they worship the "organization" as the equivalent of God. As such, that makes them monotheists!
Is it too radical to think that Jehovah's Witnesses actually worship a collective "organization? Well, consider persistent statemenst
in Watchtower publications that breezily talk about the "organization" as if it were Jehovah himself!
And if that isn't enough....
Consider a typical reaction by almost any elder, if you tell him "I don't believe in God anymore"
Will he try to console you? Try to help you? Ask about what burdens you are bearing?
Now, tell him "I don't believe in the organization anymore"
What's his reaction now? To call a committee meeting and have you disfellowshipped? Yet, abandoning belief in God
or the organization are functionally the same thing - but what comes first?
metatron
-
sweetscholar
you have to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I did not say that in the Greek "New Testament" that Jesus is not called "God" with the Greek "ho" for "the" in front of it. I said that he was not called "God" with the Greek word "ho" in front of it BY ITSELF. You think I'm not already aware of John 20:28 and Thomas' confession to our Lord? Listen. And this is NOT boasting. but just reporting to help you understand something. I have read the Bible from cover to cover at least 20 times all the way through, in my life. In at least 4 different languages too. That does not mean I'm perfect in my analysis or that I know everything. cuz I discover just how much I DON'T know each time !!!! so I'm still willing to keep an open mind to an extent. with that said, the Thomas thing was just a matter of Greek grammar to indicate "POSSESSION" OF something. "The God OF me". Ho Theos MOU. The God ME. or My God. The God of me. my Powerful One. there's no other way to construct that in Greek. I'll get back to that point in a moment, but I just want to quickly address your thing about the Father also being referred to as "God" without the article. this is the problem with trinitarians I've noticed. they think that because a broad term is applied to the Father that that negates the argument. like with "ex" and "dia" for creation. "out of" and "through". both Greek terms are applied to the Father in Scripture, but the problem is that only "dia" for "through" is ever applied to the Son, never the more powerful term "ex" for "out of" or "from" indicating Ultimate Source. The Father can have a variety of terms applied to Him, but if the Son only has one broad term ever clearly applied to Him, then THAT'S the crucial point. so what that God the Father is sometimes referred to with the indefinite God Greek? how does that help the co-equal Trinitarian argument ultimately? cuz that doesn't solve their problem one bit. the issue was not whether the Almighty Father is ever referred to without the definite article sometimes. Because obviously He is at times. no kidding. so what? He can be. that's fine. the question is that Christ is never clearly irrefutably unambiguously (never mind what Granville Sharp babbled about in Titus either) undebatably referred to as THE GOD by itself. do we see Christ ever being undeniably called that in Scripture? "Ho Theos" with nothing else really after it? in other words, where do you see a clear thing in Greek "Christos who is Ho Theos." (that thing in 1 John 5:20 "true one, he is the true God" grammatically could be referring to the Father, as even Trinitarians grudgingly admitted.) with nothing else after it? Only the Father is every clearly undeniably called 'THE GOD' in the whole Bible, like in John 1:1. yes, He's at times referred to without the article. cuz He can be referred both ways. but that's what "indefinite" means as far as John 1:1. in other words "theos ein o Logos" or "a God was the Word" COULD be the Almighty God or it may not be. it's indefinite. can go either way. that's the point. but if Christ was said to be "O Theos ein o Logos" aaahhh, there would be such a good proof text linguistically to argue for Christ's co-equal deity with the Father. but the problems that John, and the Holy Spirit, did not write it that way. Thomas's thing was a matter of Greek grammer with "mou" or "my" after it. show me one UNDENIABLE Verse in Scripture that has no debate with it where you see Christ the Son being called clearly "THE God" ever, or "ho Theos" by ITSELF without a "grammatical possession" thing involved.
-
sweetscholar
you don't read the Bible all that carefully. the Bible DOES in fact call Angels "God's Sons" Read Genesis 6, Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7. And as far as your Matthew 1:23 "Immanuel" With Us Is God or "God With Us" or "Imon O Theos" With Us The God, that shows desperation on your part, because that's simply a NICK NAME "Emmanuel". many people had that name at the time, and that did not necessarily make them Almighty God. With the Messiah of course it had more significance, because Jehovah had turned His attention to sinful Israel in a way that He did not do in a long time, and now in a much better way, through His Beloved Son who was to be Savior and Messiah and Redeemer, and through this Messiah, God would be "with" Israel and us. that's NOT the same as finding a place that says "Jesus is THE God" in those exact words. And as far as Hebrews 1, well that very same thing was a quote from the Psalms and was originally applied to King Solomon. Was Solomon Almighty God? And the point in Hebrews 1:8 was the THRONE. Your Throne is God. Many commentators who are NOT necessarily JWs have admitted that. and again, you don't read carefully. I said find me one IRREFUTABLE UNAMBIGUOUS UNDENIABLE CLEAR THING. Matthew 1:23 and Hebrews 1:8 do NOT qualify as "unambiguous and irrefutable". you may THINK that they do, buddy, but they don't. cuz then you don't know what is really meant by "unambiguous and irrefutable and clear". I'm talking about a thing where it's so grammatically clear and obvious that anybody could see it beyond exception. like again, "Christ IS THE GOD. PERIOD." not nicknames like Immanuel. or "your throne is God" originally addressing Solomon. do you see the point now????? and again, to correct your ignorance and mistake. angels ARE called "sons of God" in Scripture. But the pre-existent Christ is the UNIQUE AND ONLY-BEGOTTEN AND FIRST-BEGOTTEN AND SPECIAL SON OF GOD. the pre-existen "Angel of the LORD" that led the Israelites in the wilderness, as even many trinitarians admit is Christ. I rest my case.
-
ozziepost
Bloody hell!