by Chalam 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
Some great points in this thread, thanks for all the posts :)
The JWs would probably go to Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in OUR image."
It is interesting, I took a JW there once, "what does that verse mean, to whom does this plurality refer?".
"God and Jesus" was the answer. Of course, that too would make Jesus "God", not "a god" according to the Hebrew.
Blessings,
Stephen
Chalam.
Thank you for the interesting topic.
Well, the Governing Body explains as follows.
*** it-2 p. 52 Jesus Christ ***
Not a co-Creator.
The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION.
So, for Jehovah's Witnesses, only Jehovah is the Creator.
Moreover, that Scripture (Isa 44:24) have the Tetragrammaton.
So, probably for Jehovah's Witnesses, they may not feel no contradiction.
possible
Yeah, the WT can spin just about anything. There is always a way to explain ANYTHING - even direct contradictions that seem impossible to explain. How can you say at one point that Jehovah created everything through Jesus - the only directly created being - , and then say somewhere else that you created everything "by myself".
Which one is it? Did you create everything with your only begotten son Jesus, or did you create it all by yourself?
Trinitarians and the WT faithful can each somehow spin things to explain their respective positions.
In other cases all the WT needs to do is say that something is symbolic of something else. That method always made me chuckle.
Will the lunacy ever end?
the Oracle
Oracle, people read multiple interpretations into religious writings, sometimes the rudimentary and the allegorical views overlap. To a Pentecostal it reads one way to a Trinitarian another, to a Unitarian it means something else and on it goes.
Jewish philosopher Spinoza said- 'All Scripture was written primarily for an entire people, consequently, its contents must necessarily be adapted, as far as possible, to the understanding of the masses. Its object is not to convince the reason but to attract and lay hold of the imagination.'
Spinoza gives an example of Moses and the Red Sea- 'if Moses had said that an east wind divided the Red Sea for the Israelites and not a miracle, it would have made no impression on the simple minded folk who are usually literalists but at the same time also highly imaginative. Therefore, the Biblical account of the miracles and the wonders, of the weaving in of ravishing myths and tales of the marvelous, was given in order to entrance, to suggest, to teach, and finally, to lead to faith and right conduct.'
-good a little good each day.
