The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

AhHah

Frenchy,
Your points are well taken. I agree that all translations have bias. To avoid it, one must read interlinear transliterations, and we all know how difficult that is.
You asked about how Rev. 19: 1,3,4,6 are translated - they are rightly translated as Halleleujah, or Praise Jah (not Jehovah).
My main point was that the translation of "Jehovah" for the Greek words for Lord and God is reflective of the WT society de-emphasis of Christ in their version of Christianity, and a desire to separate New Testament references to Lord and God from any possible identification with Christ (a trinitarian concept).
It also belies their claims that the NW translation is always true to the original languages and is extremely accurate. They are guilty of exactly what they accuse other Bible translators of -- purposeful and willful bias to suit their own interpretations.
BTW, I am NOT arguing that God is a Trinity (and I am not arguing against it either). You might enjoy reading Ray Franz' open discussion of the trinity in "In Search of Christian Freedom" before you quickly dismiss the trinity as not worthy of any serious consideration. That having been said, I still have a hard time believing that God might be a trinity. But I cannot prove it either way. All "proofs" are simply interpretations of scripture anyway. To take an inflexible position on something that cannot be proven either way is one's choice, but that does not in itself make it true, just because one believes it.
It is no wonder that the members of Jehovah's Witnesses do not enjoy the precious and refreshing sense of liberation and freedom from enslavement that Christ offered his followers. AhHah -- I recognize this as your personal assessment of JW’s. I will not argue your viewpoint of this inasmuch as you have a right to it. But inasmuch as it is made in this context I feel obliged to state here that I do “enjoy a precious and refreshing sense of liberation and freedom from enslavement that Christ offered his followers“ while at the same time recognizing Christ to be the son of God and not God himself.
By your response above, are you saying that you consider yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Do other JW's also still consider you to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Do you believe that the teachings and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses allow the true Christian freedom that Christ offered? If your answer is yes, then I really do not understand how you can reconcile that with all of your other posts on this forum.
Also, your response sounded very defensive, am I right? Why?
Edited by - AhHah on 20 November 2000 1:22:37
Theophilus

Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
My focus of posting this verse is with vs. 6. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
KJV says "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Theophilus

oops. wrong button...
My point is this the term "being in the form of God" or "being in very nature God" is rendered thus because of the Greek term "morphe theou".
This phrase (and please don't take my word for it) emphasizes that Christ essential nature is that of God. That apart from his human body, he possess all the characteristics of God, because he is God.
This is why the disciples worshipped him and were not rebuked. This is why he did not refute the Pharisees when they sought to kill him for blasphemy. It was blasphemy, unless he was indeed God.
The diety and worshipfullness of Jesus as the Christ is plainly shown in the scriptures and in the witness of the early Christian Church. The writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and others of the Ante-Nicene Fathers bear witness to the doctrine. It was Tertullian, in fact, who first coigned the term "trinity" referring to the Godhead in about 200 A.D.
AhHah

Theo,
Phil. 2:6 is a verse that has troubled me for a long time. It is usually contextually cross-referenced to John 1:1 and Col. 1:15-17. All of these scriptures are usually used to support the trinity. Not surprisingly, the NW translation of all of these scriptures is used by the WT society to argue for Christ NOT being God and NOT part of a trinity.
After your post I reviewed Phil. 2:1-11 in the interlinear translations I have as well as six other Bible translations that I have at home, and read a Bible Commentary discussion of those verses. I am still unclear as to how they should be understood. Trinitarians make a convincing argument with these verses as well as John 1 and Colossians 1. The WT society makes a convincing argument for their translation of the same verses.
I find myself going back to the overall context of the Gospels and Christ's references to the Father being greater than him, praying to the Father, rebuking those who called him good -- only the Father is good, coming to do the will of the Father -- not his own will, directing attention always to the Father and not to himself, asking God why he had forsaken him as he died, etc.
Why all the humility and subjection to the Father, if Christ was God himself? Why not declare himself to be God and accept worship as such? How could the sacrifice of Christ as a man be a valid ransom if he did not actually die, since God is immortal and cannot die? Why did Christ have to be resurrected after being dead for parts of three days (the sign of Jonah) if he was God? If the trinity is so important, why did Christ not attempt to teach or explain the concept while amongst men?
I know that the pat trinitarian answer to all of these questions is that the God the Father is not the same as God the Son, even though they along with the Holy Ghost (I always laugh when I say that) are all three part of God -- co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent. Maybe it is my JW indoctrination, but I have a difficult time accepting such a concept of our Creator. And it still seems to contradict the spirit of Christ's words in the Gospel, taken at face value, with no pre-conceived notion of a trinity.
This kind of doctrinal confusion from the same book makes me really question its source.
Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 3:54:34
Frenchy

AhHah:
You asked about how Rev. 19: 1,3,4,6 are translated - they are rightly translated as Halleleujah, or Praise Jah (not Jehovah).
They are translated the same way in the NWT.
My main point was that the translation of "Jehovah" for the Greek words for Lord and God is reflective of the WT society de-emphasis of Christ in their version of Christianity, and a desire to separate New Testament references to Lord and God from any possible identification with Christ (a trinitarian concept).
Agreed. Just like Trinitarian faiths try to MAKE connections between God and Christ in an effort to support the Trinity dogma. BOTH are guilty of bias. That’s why I don’t single one out over the other. I would not expect either to do anything differently. There is no way to be absolutely unbiased without knowing the mind of the writer of the text. This, of course, is impossible.
It also belies their claims that the NW translation is always true to the original languages and is extremely accurate. They are guilty of exactly what they accuse other Bible translators of -- purposeful and willful bias to suit their own interpretations.
True. But other translators make the same claim as the WTS. That is why I don’t single one out over the other. They all do it!
You might enjoy reading Ray Franz' open discussion of the trinity in "In Search of Christian Freedom" before you quickly dismiss the trinity as not worthy of any serious consideration.
It is not a subject I treat lightly. I have debated this at great lengths on other boards with theologians and ministers and lay people. As a matter of fact I’m still remembered on one particular board for what became known as the ‘great trinity debate’.
All "proofs" are simply interpretations of scripture anyway. To take an inflexible position on something that cannot be proven either way is one's choice, but that does not in itself make it true, just because one believes it.
I agree with all of that. That’s why I enjoy debating it. I listen to the other side as well.
By your response above, are you saying that you consider yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Do other JW's also still consider you to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
My response was not in defense of the WTS. Your thread began by an attack on the NWT for its “non-trinitarian bias” and you closed your argument with the statement that you are now referencing. I was merely pointing out that I do not believe in a trinity and I have this freedom of being one of Christ’s followers.
Do you believe that the teachings and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses allow the true Christian freedom that Christ offered?
What teachings and practices specifically? I just said that I don’t believe in a trinity and this is a JW teaching.
Also, your response sounded very defensive, am I right? Why?
I believe that my responses are consistent with what I have posted here all along. I am very careful to post my personal feelings and ideas as such so as not to offend anyone.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Frenchy

Theo:
Phil. 2: 5,6 “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,” ASV.
To exist in ‘the form of God’ is not the same as being God. What does ‘form’ mean? That would first have to be defined and then it would have to be shown that the writer was using it with that meaning in mind. (There is also the phrase “[he]…counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped” which can be viewed as meaning that Christ never even considered being ‘on a equality with God’.) This ‘indirect’ type of proof is indicative of all the ‘proofs’ that are offered to support the trinity dogma. There is no clear statement in the Bible that defines the concept of the trinity. This is important to remember and it is a fact recognized by the very architects of the Trinity Dogma, namely the Catholic Church. Look at what their encyclopedia states concerning this:
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, --Emphasis mine

Now please note this, also from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence
According to the RCC, the dogma is by “Divine revelation” and consequently not from Scripture because ‘Divine revelation’ is not scripture. So, according to the fabricators of this dogma, you won’t find it in Scripture. It gets better:
For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. –Emphasis mine.
That seems pretty candid and straightforward to me. The engineers of this dogma state plainly that this doctrine “is not contained in the New Testament”. I would like to add that neither is it contained in the ‘Old Testament’.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Frenchy

Ahah: This is a side point here but you mentioned "My main point was that the translation of "Jehovah" for the Greek words for Lord and God is reflective of the WT society de-emphasis of Christ in their version of Christianity," I would like to say that I think that the emphasis SHOULD be on Jehovah more so than on Christ. This is consistent with what Jesus taught about his father. He came not for his own will but for that of the Father. He taught mankind about the Father, the Father did not teach about Christ. He is not the destination but THE WAY to the Father.
Just my view on it.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
AhHah

Frenchy,
This is a side point here but you mentioned "My main point was that the translation of "Jehovah" for the Greek words for Lord and God is reflective of the WT society de-emphasis of Christ in their version of Christianity," I would like to say that I think that the emphasis SHOULD be on Jehovah more so than on Christ. This is consistent with what Jesus taught about his father. He came not for his own will but for that of the Father. He taught mankind about the Father, the Father did not teach about Christ. He is not the destination but THE WAY to the Father.
You seem to be missing the point that I thought I made very clear in my comments.
This is consistent with their insistence on de-emphasizing Christ in their doctrines and practices, and emphasizing the focus on Jehovah (Jehovah's Witnesses) and his dealings with the Israelites and the Mosaic Law Covenant. Their pseudo-Christian religion attempts to preserve the same kind of Jewish enslavement to their law code under their Pharisaical attempt to legislate Christian doctrines and practices.

The JW religion (the GB) places themselves in the position that only Christ rightly deserves. Sometimes they even place themselves above Christ by their insistence on obedience to their rules, rules which even Christ refused to make, and which he tried to liberate his followers from. In order for the JW members to accept this kind of spiritual bondage in the name of Christ, as though it were from God, the GB has had to focus more on Jehovah and his use of the Israelites and the Mosacic Law Covenant as a basis for many of their rules, rules which Christ liberated us from.
They thus detract attention from the rightful place which Christ and his liberating Christian form of worship has been assigned by God. Their insistence on inserting God's name in the NT is just one more way that they betray their callousness about how they go about creating their religious deception. They are very much a Pharisaical organization which rejects and invalidates the spirit of Christianity and, in doing so, also de-emphasizes the rightful importance of Christ in their worship. They should instead follow Christ' humble example as their spiritual head. They should refuse to go beyond God's will by refraining from assuming religious authority, which they have usurped from that which was given by God to Christ himself.
Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 13:46:27
AhHah

Frenchy,
Why do the trinitarian biased translations "dare" to SUBSTITUTE “LORD” for the tetragrammaton? Is that any less of a transgression than what the NWT has done? Is that not bias?
It also belies their claims that the NW translation is always true to the original languages and is extremely accurate. They are guilty of exactly what they accuse other Bible translators of -- purposeful and willful bias to suit their own interpretations. -- AhHah. --- True. But other translators make the same claim as the WTS. That is why I don’t single one out over the other. They all do it!
I never said that other translators do not do it, did I? Why do you insist on defending them by saying "Yeah, but THEY did it too!". That doesn't seem to me a very intelligent or valid way to discuss matters of such importance. I am not attacking the JWs or the NW translators for being any less reprehensible than any others may be. Copying the sins of others should not be an excuse for those who claim to be God's only true organization, should it?
You seem to be very much a JW apololgist in your posts. In one post recently you said that they have not proven to be God's organization, but you wish that they WOULD so that you could "RUN back" into their arms. That certainly seems to influence the way you attempt to defend the JW org (and now the NW translators) in any way you can.
I noticed that you avoided directly answering the question below:
By your response above, are you saying that you consider yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Do other JW's also still consider you to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses? AhHah -- My response was not in defense of the WTS. Your thread began by an attack on the NWT for its “non-trinitarian bias” and you closed your argument with the statement that you are now referencing. I was merely pointing out that I do not believe in a trinity and I have this freedom of being one of Christ’s followers.
Do you not wish to answer the question?
Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 21:10:54
Frenchy

AhHah:
the GB has had to focus more on Jehovah and his use of the Israelites and the Mosacic Law Covenant as a basis for many of their rules, rules which Christ liberated us from.
I don’t agree with that assessment.
Their insistence on inserting God's name in the NT is just one more way that they betray their callousness about how they go about creating their religious deception.
I don’t agree with that either. Giving prominence to God’s name does not constitute deception.
They are very much a Pharisaical organization which rejects and invalidates the spirit of Christianity
In many ways, yes.
They should refuse to go beyond God's will by refraining from assuming religious authority, which they have usurped from that which was given by God to Christ himself.
I agree with that.
On the matter of translations:
I never said that other translators do not do it, did I? Why do you insist on defending them by saying "Yeah, but THEY did it too!". That doesn't seem to me a very intelligent or valid way to discuss matters of such importance.
No, you never said they didn’t do it but you never admitted that they did either, did you? Your argument conveniently left out that important piece of information. YOU singled out the NWT for criticism and accused it of doing something that other translations do also. Where is the fairness and the ‘intelligence’ of that? Why use the argument at all if you are willing to admit that the others do it as well. It’s like cheating on a test and then accusing your fellow students of doing so too. What’s the point?
You seem to be very much a JW apololgist in your posts.
That seems to bother you quite a bit. You bring that up constantly. Suppose that were true, what of it then? I am not a JW apologist but neither am I a JW basher. I take issue with many of their practices and teachings. You evidently choose to ignore this and concentrate on those times when I take issue with a particular criticism that I don’t agree with. I am also in agreement with many of their practices and teachings. I have consistently maintained this from the time I began posting here.
I noticed that you avoided directly answering the question: --By your response above, are you saying that you consider yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Do other JW's also still consider you to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
I fail to see why that is so important to you. I am still a ‘publisher in good standing’ in the congregation. I am now officially an ‘inactive publisher’. As long as I do not officially disassociate myself or become disfellowshipped, I am still technically (and officially) a JW. Other JW’s see me at the meetings (when I attend) and they assume what I have stated above.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

Share this