Posts by Sea Breeze

25

John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God

by Sea Breeze in

in answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!

- john 20: 28 nwt.

why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.

Sea Breeze

@Halcon

The belief that Jesus and God are the same person with a different essence is called Modalism. This view holds that God is one being who manifests himself in different modes or forms, one of which is Jesus Christ. It contrasts with the Trinitarian view, which posits that God exists eternally as three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one divine being. Here are some reasons why this should be rejected:

1. Contradiction with Scripture:

Interactions between Persons: The Bible depicts distinct interactions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, Jesus prays to the Father, the Father sends the Son, and the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus at his baptism. Modalism struggles to explain these passages convincingly, as it would imply God is essentially interacting with different aspects of himself, which is seen as illogical and contrary to the relational nature of God presented in scripture.

Simultaneous Presence: Events like Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:16-17) portray all three "modes" simultaneously present, contradicting the modalist idea of sequential manifestation.

Personhood of the Holy Spirit: Scripture attributes personal characteristics like will, emotions, and mind to the Holy Spirit, suggesting a distinct personhood rather than just a divine force or mode.

2. Undermining Key Christian Doctrines:

The Incarnation: Modalism blurs the distinction between Father and Son, diminishing the unique significance of the Son's incarnation and redemptive work. The core belief is that the Son of God, a distinct person, took on human nature to redeem humanity, which Modalism undermines by suggesting the Son is merely a mode.

The Atonement: If the Father and Son are the same person, then the concept of God sending his Son to die for humanity loses its meaning. The sacrifice becomes God essentially sacrificing himself to himself, which contradicts the relational aspect of the atonement in orthodox Christianity.

Patripassianism: An implication of Modalism is that the Father suffers, or Patripassianism. This is because Modalism doesn't differentiate between the Father and the Son, suggesting the Father suffered on the cross, which contradicts the orthodox belief that only the Son suffered in his humanity.

3. Historical Rejection:

Modalism was condemned as a heresy by early church councils (with a near unanimous vote from pastors from diverse locations throughout the empire) like the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which affirmed the Trinitarian doctrine of God as one essence in three distinct persons. This rejection highlights the historical consensus within Christianity against modalism.

Any attempt to characterize the nature of Jesus must include the bible's description of BOTH the nature of man AND the nature of God. This chart and scripture references illuminate these distinctions and characteristics :

25

John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God

by Sea Breeze in

in answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!

- john 20: 28 nwt.

why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.

Sea Breeze

@SlimBoyFat

The fact that John used both the term: "Son of God" and "God" in the same book to refer to Jesus tells us that both are referring to Jesus' deity. But it is not only John, but Jesus' enemies as well understood the term "Son of God" to be a reference of his deity.

During His trial, the High Priest demanded of Jesus, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63). “‘Yes, it is as you say,’ Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven’” (Matthew 26:64).

The Jewish leaders responded by accusing Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-66). Later, before Pontius Pilate, “The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7). Why would His claiming to be the Son of God be considered blasphemy and be worthy of a death sentence? The Jewish leaders understood exactly what Jesus meant by the phrase “Son of God.”

To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God. The Son of God is “of God.” The claim to be of the same nature as God—to in fact be God—was blasphemy to the Jewish leaders; therefore, they demanded Jesus’ death, in keeping with Leviticus 24:15. Hebrews 1:3 expresses this very clearly, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being.”

What is it about Jesus being God that bothered so many people then as it does now?

25

John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God

by Sea Breeze in

in answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!

- john 20: 28 nwt.

why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.

Sea Breeze

In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God! - John 20: 28 NWT

Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is God when he is called that in their own bible?

Several early Church Fathers referred to and cited John 20:28, particularly in discussions about the divinity of Christ and the importance of faith in the resurrection.

Here are some examples:

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 30-107 AD): In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius mentions Thomas' exclamation, "My Lord, and my God" after seeing Jesus post-resurrection, as evidence of Jesus' physical resurrection and his deity. The Catholic Cross Reference reports that Ignatius used this verse.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 210-258 AD): Cyprian, in his work Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, uses John 20:28, among other scriptures, to argue for the divinity of Christ.

Novatian (c. 200-258 AD): In his Treatise Concerning the Trinity, Novatian cites Thomas' declaration as support for the belief that Jesus is both Lord and God.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 298-373 AD): Athanasius references Thomas' words in his Letter to Epictetus to emphasize that even those who initially denied Christ's divinity should now confess that the crucified Jesus is indeed God.

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444 AD): Cyril provides extensive commentary on John 20:28, highlighting its significance for understanding Christ's divine nature. He states that confessing Jesus as "My Lord and my God" affirms his inherent divine authority and nature as God.

These examples demonstrate that the early Church leaders recognized the importance of Thomas' statement in John 20:28 as a declaration of Jesus' divinity.

51

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Sea Breeze

@SBF,

Do you personally believe that examining they way the first Christians used this verse has any bearing on determining how a verse should be translated?

Here are some examples:

Tertullian: Tertullian, a prolific writer in the late second and early third centuries, is noted for using the phrase "the blood of God," which appears to be a direct reflection of Acts 20:28. He emphasizes that the "Lord's flock" is the people of the Church, purchased with this divine blood.

Ignatius of Antioch: Ignatius of Antioch, an early Bishop of Antioch who wrote in the early second century, uses the phrase "rekindled in the blood of God" in his Letter to the Ephesians. This echoes the language and sentiment of Acts 20:28. His writings often emphasize the importance of church hierarchy and the leadership of bishops, further aligning with the context of Acts 20:28, where Paul addresses the elders (overseers/bishops).

So, regardless of any ambiguity that some modern critic might introduce, we know how the early church leaders quoted this verse.

24

Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower translates this verse like this: .

but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.

Sea Breeze

AI didn’t realize that a woman’s maiden name indicates her husband’s ancestry

And this has what to do with the mountains of evidence that Jesus is God? If you cannot accept the bible where it says that Jesus raised himself from the dead, what makes you think that any evidence would convince you that Jesus is God?

it claimed there are no variants in this text

One of the hallmarks of Aqweds' posts is how he thoroughly deals with textual variants.

Textual variants are quickly dispelled by looking at how the first Christians quoted or referred to said verse in question. You would never run your own life based on this kind of credulity.

In contrast, the NWT renders the verse as: "to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son." The insertion of "Son" (υἱοῦ, huiou) is not supported by any extant Greek manuscript. Textual criticism confirms that the phrase "διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου" is consistent across all known manuscripts, with no evidence for the inclusion of "Son." Variants exist for the phrase "the church of God" (τοῦ θεοῦ) versus "the church of the Lord" (τοῦ κυρίου), as noted in the Nestle-Aland critical apparatus, but these do not affect the phrase in question. Early translations, such as the Sahidic Coptic and the Peshitta, further corroborate the reading "his own blood," reinforcing the textual integrity of the traditional rendering (Stack Exchange: Acts 20:28 variants).

He deals with variants in the clauses above in the Acts 20: 28 thread. The main point is this: The insertion of "Son" (υἱοῦ, huiou) is not supported by any extant Greek manuscript.

Please falsify this statement.

Your mind is broken SlimBoyFat.

24

Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower translates this verse like this: .

but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.

Sea Breeze

@Slimboyfat

You are just miffed that Aqwsed destroyed every single one of your objections. Who cares if he data mined some of the denser technical aspects instead of reading thousands of pages of documents with a highlighter and ink pen in hand ? Computers do it faster. Have you ever used a computer to get information faster than you could by manually searching through a book? Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The information stands on it own, as does yours. No need to vent the frustration of your failures by shooting the messenger.

Instead of blaming the bearer of bad news, why don't you address the actual issue or message? You rarely even address the early church leaders quotes that I present. I must admit that your condescending attitude is not your usual approach. "Aquabot"? C'mon man! I'll take an AI bot over a JoBot any day.

Don't you think it is weird that you have a problem with all the verses in the bible that call Jesus God?

Then, when you find a minority or obscure source that supposedly supports the Watchtower view, you claim "the evidence is mixed" and certainty is impossible. Yea, it's mixed alright. Mixed with people who don't believe Jesus was God.

The bottom line is that many of Jesus' personal friends, early disciples, and church leaders repeatedly referred to Jesuits as God. He didn't stop them, and neither did any of the apostles or their 1st or 2nd generation disciples. You don't need to be a linguist to understand that. It is a matter of historical record and you cannot change that record no matter how vigorously you don't like it.

84

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

Sea Breeze

The objection from 1 John 4:12 (“No one has ever seen God”)...

God was veiled in human flesh that same way that Moses had to wear a veil because his face showed the brilliance of the Lord after meeting with him on Sinai.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. - Hebrews 10: 19&20

Chrysostom quoted Hebrews 10:20 in his homilies on Hebrews and interpreted the verse, stating that "Christ's flesh shows us the Godhead as if it were under a veil, For otherwise we could not stand the brightness of it."

24

Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower translates this verse like this: .

but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.

Sea Breeze

St. John Chrysostom was probably the most famous preacher in the first 300 years after the cross. Very well known.Nicknamed "Golden-mouth". Very gifted orator.

He refers to Hebrews 1:8, explaining the Father's words to the Son. He highlights the Father directly addressing the Son as God ("Your throne, O God"), emphasizing the Son's divine nature and eternal reign. This is notable, as the passage indicates the Father speaking, a detail Chrysostom points out, while affirming that the Son is clearly designated as God.

If this wasn't the traditional view, he would have been roundly criticized. But no one did.

Many other early leaders called Jesus "God" in their writings, because he proved it and they believed it.

61

They are running out of people to do their stuff.

by liam in

this is the watchtower study article being studied today.

so it’s the current new light!.

what are the new qualifications to be an “elder-aka older man...and circuit overseer?.

Sea Breeze

Now you get 3 foot high boys doing mics and things instead of sisters

Man that must be humiliating to the adult males who regularly come. At least it would have been for me back in the day.

84

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

Sea Breeze

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

Indeed.

I must admit that I like shortcuts. I pretty much just see how the first few generations of Christian leaders either quoted or paraphrased a particular verse that heretics say is wrong. If I find two or more supporting the traditional reading, (as I do 98% of the time) that's good enough for me.

Helps me skip a lot of reading about grammar and foreign languages so I can do more important things. But, I do appreciate all the posts on these "corruption" threads. Very enlightening.

Did I mention my three sons and I caught 8 large red snapper (the limit) in the Gulf of America last weekend? Yes, I do other things than hang out here. Hope you all do too!