Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  After posting I wished I had worded that differently. I realize that many times people post their beliefs and feelings without any desire for them to be analyzed from scientific or historical perspectives. I hope 'm getting better at appreciating that and leave people to their own while offering support if needed.

  That said, threads like this were ostensibly about best evidence. If the question is about the extant beliefs among the Jewish community in the 1rst century, we can dispassionately discuss it. Unfortunately, that is almost impossible for someone with strong convictions that their beliefs and their historical view are the product of unfalsifiable revelation. If your motive is proselytization rather than sincere discussion, you are in the wrong place.
• 

  Earnest

  Sea Breeze : Unitarians frequently state that 1+1+1 = 3 not one. Yet they have no problem believeing that H2O can exist as a solid, gas, or liquid and yet be one substance.

  A belief that Jesus, like water, can exist in three states but remain the same substance is the "heresy" of modalism, or Sabellianism, which teaches that God is one person appearing in three different modes. This was held by some early Jewish Christian groups but is generally held to be heresy by orthodox christianity today.
  

  I concur with peacefulpete that if you want to discuss the nature of man it would be more productive to start a thread on it yourself.
  
  
• 

  TonusOH

  Sea Breeze: A materialistic view of the nature of man is the underlying problem that you and others are having.

  Not exactly. Recognizing the physical nature of the universe is not a presupposition, nor does it require one. It reflects the most basic understanding of the world that surrounds us.

  A person may decide to take up the presupposition that the material world is all that there is, but this is an unnecessary complication, since it requires that he demonstrate a negative. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that the material universe exists and is measurable, and to expect evidence for any claims that posit anything outside of the physical.

  By definition, a presupposition is made and kept in light of the lack of evidence. If you have evidence, then you do not need to presuppose an idea. Religious presuppositions are easy enough to spot, since they are supported by attempts to fit them into gaps in our knowledge or understanding. There is no evidence for gods or souls (or similar spiritual concepts) that doesn't take the form of "if X is not true, then how do you explain Y?" Try it. Find an approach that doesn't amount to one of the following:

  If A is not true, then how do you explain B?

  If A is not true, then how do you account for C?

  How does D make sense, if A is not true?

  How is E possible without A?

  ...and so on.

  This should come as no surprise. If there was a way to measure such things and come up with consistent outcomes, the world would follow one religion and one god (or however many gods there might be). Lacking this evidence, mankind has worked its way through dozens --if not hundreds-- of religions and thousands --and possibly hundreds of thousands-- of denominations within those religions. Without evidence --without something we can test-- presuppositions are all we have. And they are not enough.

  As an example, there is no need to presuppose that water can exist in three different states. We discovered this through observation and confirmed how it works through research and testing. We know most (perhaps all) of the combinations of temperature, air pressure, and other factors that determine the forms that water can take. The experiments are both obvious and simple.

  Not only is there no test for determining the triune nature of Yahweh, but there is no consensus on the matter among people who share almost all of the same presuppositions related to the god of the Bible. There is no way to test or confirm the 'triality of man,' either. Theists themselves will admit that this cannot be done; they depend on the Bible and on the centuries of constant interpretation of its words and meanings. And --as we can see in some of the discussions here-- we seem no closer to figuring it out than we were centuries ago.

  The natures of water and deities are not comparable. The metaphysical does not have the same legitimacy as the physical. The latter is undeniable. The former is as yet only a concept. Without actual evidence, that will not change.
• 

  Rivergang

  TonusOH,

  Well said - with the key word being “measurable”.
• 

  Blotty

  maybe people should consider how Edgar J Goodspeed (a trinitarian) renders Hebrews 1:6 -https://studybible.info/Goodspeed/Hebrews%201:6

  Robert M Bowman jr (a source AQWSED has used in multiple posts) said Goodspeed was "one of the greatest scholars in American history."
  Ironically even tho Bowman calls Goodspeed this, he later overlooks Goodspeeds translation of a verse that is IDENTICAL to the NWTs and called it "wrong".

  So unless AQ wants to argue with not only a trinitarian, but a well respected American scholar, they might want to retract their statement..

  Also AQ try a dictionary from the time KJV was translated and look at the meaning for the word "worship" - you are selectively citing to suit YOUR theological position...

  + The angels are TOLD to "worship" Christ, something that WOULD NOT constitute idolotry outside the mosaic law. This is a typical reapplication that could mean something slightly different
  Prove me wrong AQ - yes PROVE with sources
• 

  joey jojo

  I suspect All of the posters on this thread critical of the unbroken chain of evidence on the deity of Christ from the eyewitnesses of the Resurection down to the present day DO NOT accept the biblical definition of our soul and spirit as PERSONS in the bible.

  Nobody witnessed the resurrection.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Nobody witnessed the resurrection.

  No but there were witnesses of his resurrection who bravely witnessed to it; a number closest to him (apostles) were martyred affirming their resurrection faith.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Blotty

  Goodspeed’s translation as "bow before him" does not negate the possibility of divine worship. The Greek word proskyneō can signify various levels of reverence, from bowing in respect to full worship depending on the context. Goodspeed’s choice of wording reflects linguistic flexibility rather than theological dismissal of Christ's deity. Heb. 1:6 applies the phrase "let all God's angels worship him" directly to Jesus. This is a quotation from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, where the context clearly refers to Yahweh receiving worship. By applying this to Jesus, Hebrews elevates Christ to the same divine status as Yahweh, necessitating a reading of proskyneō as worship, not mere homage. The NWT systematically translates proskyneō as "worship" whenever it refers to God the Father but as "obeisance" whenever it refers to Christ. This inconsistency reveals theological bias rather than fidelity to the text. For instance, proskyneō is translated as "worship" in Matt. 4:10 ("You shall worship [proskyneō] the Lord your God"), but as "do obeisance" in Heb. 1:6 when directed at Jesus. This selective translation undermines the claim of impartiality, particularly when other respected translations (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV) consistently render proskyneō as "worship" in Heb. 1:6. In Rev. 5:13-14, all creation offers identical worship to "the one seated on the throne" (God) and "the Lamb" (Jesus). The Greek proskyneō is used in the context of both, affirming the Lamb's equality in divine status. If proskyneō were intended to mean mere homage for Jesus, it would contradict the shared divine worship described here.

  While proskyneō can also signify homage or respect (e.g., Matt. 18:26, where a servant bows before his master), its meaning is clarified by the context. In the case of Jesus, in Matt. 14:33, the disciples worship Him after He calms the storm, declaring, "Truly, you are the Son of God!" This context goes beyond respect, as it attributes divine identity to Jesus. Similarly, in Matt. 28:9 and 28:17, the disciples worship the risen Jesus. This act is framed as religious veneration, aligning with the recognition of His deity. Jesus' acceptance of worship sets Him apart from others. Angels and apostles consistently reject worship (e.g., Rev. 19:10; Acts 10:25-26), directing it to God alone. Jesus, however, accepts worship without correction, demonstrating His divine status. The original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:43, reconstructed from the Dead Sea Scrolls, includes "let all the angels of God worship him," which the Septuagint renders with proskyneō. In its OT context, this refers to Yahweh.

  Harnînû šāmāyim ʿammô wəyištaḥăwû lô kol malʾăk̲ê ʾĕlōhîm harnînû g̲ôyim ʿammô wayḥazqû lô kol bənê ʾĕlōhîm kî d̲am-b̲ānāyw yiqqôm wənāqām yāšîb̲ ləṣārāyw wəlimśanʾāyw yəšallēm wayk̲appēr ʾad̲mat̲ ʿammô

  Rejoice, O heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him. Rejoice, O nations, with his people, and let all the children of God strengthen themselves in him. For he will avenge the blood of his children, and he will render vengeancei to his enemies, and he will recompense them that hate him, and he atones for the land of his people.

  In the Hebrew text, the equivalent of "to worship" is the word וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ [weyištaḥăwû]. This word comes from the Hebrew verb "שָׁחָה" (Šāḥāh) which means "to worship", it is also found in Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not worship them nor serve them". It literally comes etymologically from the meaning of bowing down, humbly paying homage to a deity, thus worshiping. So the author of Hebrews applies this divine worship to Jesus, reinforcing the theological claim that Jesus shares in Yahweh's deity.

  While "worship" in older English usage could include respect or homage, the modern understanding aligns more closely with the biblical context when referring to Jesus. For instance, in Rev. 5:13-14 and Heb. 1:6, proskyneō clearly implies divine worship, as it is directed toward God and the Lamb in a unified context of adoration. Reducing proskyneō to mere "obeisance" in references to Jesus undermines the consistent NT witness to His divine identity. The disciples' worship of Jesus in Matt. 14:33 and 28:17, the blind man's worship in John 9:38, and the angels' worship in Heb. 1:6 collectively affirm Jesus' worthiness of divine honor. The NWT’s selective translation of proskyneō reflects theological bias. It translates the term as "worship" when directed toward God or false idols but as "obeisance" when directed toward Jesus. This inconsistency lacks linguistic justification and serves to deny Jesus' divine status, contrary to the biblical text.
• 

  Halcon

  The metaphysical does not have the same legitimacy as the physical. The latter is undeniable. The former is as yet only a concept. Without actual evidence, that will not change.

  Do love, fear and hate...hope and dread ...fall under the category of 'physical' or 'metaphysical'?
• 

  TonusOH

  Halcon, all of those originate in the brain, a physical object. I consider them physical phenomena.