Is Jesus Christ, Jehovah God? (Not the Father, but Equal to the Father)

by JW Answers 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Island Man

  I think it's pretty clear from the NT that Jesus was an object of worship for 1st century Christians. At the same time it's also clear that Jesus was considered as being inferior/subordinate to the Father. There is no trinity described in the NT.

  I think a major problem is discerning different usages of the word god. Sometimes god is used to mean God the Father. Other times it's used to simply mean having the quality of great power or authority without intending to mean equal with the Father.

  JWs are on one extreme, minimizing Jesus' status while Trinitarians are on the opposite extreme overstating his status. The "truth" (what the NT reveals) is somewhere in the middle and, as Cofty pointed out, may not be all that consistent.
• 

  Introvert 2

  Good post and comments following. I too think the truth lies somewhere in the middle for us believing Christians. Makes more sense that way, to me at least.
• 

  cofty

  FFS cofy you sound exactly like a watchtower Muppet. Quoting things out of context, circular reasoning etc etc, not understanding old testament references. Go find your nearest hall and get back in the Borg - Steel

  So you have nothing intelligent to say about Christology then Steel?

  So far I have made the following points. Which of them is out of context or amounts to 'circular reasoning exactly? (or did throwing in the name of a random fallacy just make you feel clever?)

  1 - The bible does not present a coherent Christology. Paul, the author of Mark, the authors of Matthew and Luke and the author of John have different perspectives about Jesus.

  2 - The trinity is a post-biblical development.

  3 - The bible nowhere contains a straightforward statement of the trinity doctrine and the Johannine Comma is not supported by the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

  4 - The bible does contain many verses that identify Jesus as God but it also contains many other verses that do the opposite. The many references the God and Father of Jesus are one such example.

  5 - It is impossible to state the trinity in non-esoteric terms without contradicting yourself of committing a heresy.

  So that's my position Steel and JWA. Have you anything thoughtful to say in reply?
• 

  cofty

  The books of Luke, Mark and Matthew are called the synoptic gossips and don't really deal with larger issue of who Jesus was. - Steel

  Mark, Matthew and Luke are not called the synoptic gossips, they are called the synoptic gospels.

  Who Jesus was is precisely what they deal with. Have you never bothered to read them?
• 

  stillin

  I'm sorry to sound rude but doesn't it all seem just a little contrived? I mean, sure, if the Bible really is the straight Word of God, then we are well-advised to read it very closely. But we have had it for centuries and we are still bickering about what it says! It seems that there would be some sure, conclusive, end-all-doubts synopsis that squelches any mistaken understanding. That was what I thought the WT had done for us. But the fact is that we're discussing how things are in a realm that we have never seen... and sounding so sure of ourselves!

  I can see comparing proof-texts, but which ones carry the most weight? If it was important that we knew, it seems that God would have made sure that we wouldn't go wrong.
• 

  cofty

  You might enjoy this lecture by Bart Ehrman. If you search YouTube for 'Ehrman + How Jesus Became God' you will find a much longer, three-part version, of this theme.

  ...
• 

  Lost in the fog

  Does any of it really matter any more?
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  I believe that was just Steel's attempt at sarcasm. Your analysis of the NT evidence doesn't seem too far off.
• 

  cofty

  You are too nice Vanderhoven. Steel has form.

  Inconvenient facts prompt aggression from people who are heavily invested in certain theological positions.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  The Trinity only makes sense from a quantum point of view. So, we have “GOD” who through it’s own desire creates a being from its own essence. The “Word” is literally God, because “GOD” did not need a partner to create another God.

  Imagine if you could will another human into existence by pure desire, provided that you used your own life/essence as the medium. That new being would be YOU. No other DNA was needed. That being would be new, but it would be you, but not you. Even a clone would not be YOU exactly, because it’s experience would be different than yours.

  So Jesus could only be GOD in that he came directly from GOD. He is completely God, but also begotten of God. So GOD could be in two places at once. So if GOD has existed before God, then GOD could be superior in a sense.

  So now we have a quantum entanglement situation, where God can be in two places at once, Or perhaps everywhere at once.

  The problem with the above is that it makes GOD subject to the physical laws of the Universe, like Quantum Physics. Even though it’s a vast, largely unknown field, it’s still physical in nature.

  In the end it’s just a journey down an endless rabbit hole that will ware your time and drive you mad. Just live till you die. If there is anything after, you’ll know soon enough.

  On second thought, it really doesn’t make any sense at all.

  DD