1. Introduction
one tactic might be overviewing. there are lots of verses where a FAIR translation is that Jesus is God. its a difference of opinion on both sides for certain reasons BUT why on earth would God allow so many verses to be FAIRLY translated Jesus is God, like John 1. On top of that, why would Heb 1 go out of its way to say 'no angel' is like JEsus and in fact angels are told to worship Jesus. They can change the word to soften it all they want, that's the only time they retranslate the word for worship 'proskenos' or whatever to something else. And why would there be multiple passages saying that Michael is only 'one of' the chief princes. All these things and more make the god of JW's look like a retard.
I think i can roughly put myself in the shoes of JW's as I challenge them because I face a similar attitude from atheists regularly. So as I take on the role similar to an atheist here, I try to be fair and understanding. I’ve learnt a lot about discerning truth claims and arguing logically and I want to apply that to this strand of teaching because if it’s true I want to believe it.
This is an attack on ideas and if that extends to people as well, then I mean only the Watchtower/Governing body because they are actually the only ones allowed intellectual freedom. If you do not agree with what they say you are not a JW. The reasoning and interpretation comes from them, they hold most of the blame. The Bible is very firm against false teachers therefore so should every good Christian.
The thing JW's find the most compelling about their religion is their unity, fruits, scripture alone, pacifists/apolitical position, and understanding of God's Kingdom.
Because they are wrong and being deceived, they very often commit logical fallacies. Such as red herring. Jumping all about to and fro especially when they can’t answer something you’ve raised. Another big one is circular reasoning. I asked them what made their interpretations right and as listed, one answer given is because they have a correct understanding of God’s kingdom…Great! How do I know your understanding is right?!
They constantly say they only believe scripture and then in the same breath will tell you 3 different times to check out their courses and website to learn more.
Your arguments can't be made up of more verses because they have an answer already. Or at least find out what they say and then have reason and logic instead. Questions that poke glaring holes in their interpretation. The governing body finds arguments against them and judo flips them so you have to get to the individual JW before they get to the answer the GB provides. You have to do that with genuine, innovative logic and arguments.
3. The Cross
This is another one of the fluctuating doctrines of the GB as their second president Rutherford changed the official stance on the cross.
They will quote A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament to say stauros never means two wooden stakes joined at any angle. But Kittel’s Theological Dictionary states that Stauros can mean multiple different wooden structures used for execution. And Xulon can refer to anything made from wood. The word itself isn’t enough to tell us the shape. That’s why we need more data.
We know crosses were used in Roman crucifixion so why do they go to so much effort to call it a pagan symbol that came much later? Roman author Lucian in “Trial in the Court of Vowels” implies most crucifixions were with the T shaped cross.
Like second century Christians using a staurogram to depict a little cross in the word as demonstrated by scholar Larry Hurtado. Justin Martyr and an epistle of Barnabas both mention two beams for Jesus’ death (AD 100). And Tertullian points out the use of Tau Greek letter shaped like a cross. And an ancient drawing intended to mock Christians in early 3rd century shows a cross called Alexamanos Graffito.
And the fact that John mentions nails being used (Jn 20:25). This fits with a cross very nicely. Not as nice with the stake view because you only need one nail as the Watchtower concedes in their illustration in the 2014 What does the Bible Really Teach?
Furthermore, when Jesus refers to Peter being crucified he says his arms would be outstretched (Jn 21:18-19).
And yet the evidence continues, the sign over his head in Mt 27:37 is only possible if he is on a cross. If he were on a stake, the sign would be over his hands.
They use Gal 3:13 where Paul cites Deut 21:22-23. But it proves too much. It's just as unlikely the word would have meant 'upright stake'. If anything a tree resembles a cross more than a stake.
There is similarity with the Egyptian Ankh which pertains to eternal life. But who's to say that wasn't God priming a pagan culture for His son in the same way he primed the Jews? And if angient pagan influence is so evil and despicable in the sight of God then JW's are really letting Him down with wedding rings, wedding cakes, flowers on graves, wind chimes, and any other thing one cares to trace the origins of. How do they respond? Oh it's all about your intentions and God looks at the heart. How convenient.
3. The New World Translation
Scholarship agreement
· Scholar Dr Julius Manty author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT calls the NWT a “shocking mistranslation”
· Dr. Bruce Metzger biggest name in world for Greek calls it a “frightful mistranslation erroneous, pernicious and reprehensible" And the Governing Body quote him to argue that 1 John 5:7-8 shouldn't be in the NT so they treat him as authoritative.
· Dr William Barkley “deliberate distortion of truth by this sect seen in their NT translation it is abundantly clear that a sect that can translate the NT like this, is intellectually dishonest.”
· Almost universally rejected by noted scholars in the field of Biblical translations. Dr. Ron Rhodes, who wrote “Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah Witnesses,” stated: “The New World translation is an incredibly biased translation.”
· Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation ‘has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation…It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly.’
· British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, ‘from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.’ Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is ‘an insult to the Word of God.’”
· Dr J R. Mantey, co-author of the highly acclaimed Manual Greek Grammar of the Greek New Testament along with H.E Dana made this comment in response to a question “I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because 99% of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe.”
• They find an endorsement for their translation in Edgar J Goodspeed from 1952, could they find one a little bit more updated? Allen Wikgren also about 1952, Alexander Thomson again 1952, this was all very soon after it was first released as well…not much time to really go in depth…and there have been multiple revisions since then so how correct are they really? Charles Potter, also in this same time period, Robert McCoy 1963, Professor S. Maclean Gilmour 1966. Also keep in mind, with these endorsements the JW website is pointing out the fact that they still had their concerns for some areas of the NWT.
The anonymous committee
Apparently very humble by only wanting to give glory to God by not naming themselves, but as former JW David Reed says “an unbiased observer will quickly note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions in their renderings. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.”
Their names eventually did get out, and as it turned out, they were completely unqualified. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education. The fifth, Fred W. Franz, claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburg Scotland he failed a simple Hebrew test.
Examples of a bad job
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Grandville sharps rule, a standard grammatical rule in Greek clearly saying Jesus is God but they have made a mess of this because of their preconceived notions. God and Savior both apply to the name Jesus. They knew about this rule because it’s used everywhere else (2 Pet 1:11, 2 Pet 1:1). The rule applies 100% of the time.
John 1:1 was specifically made to combat false ideas but of course the false teachers have to twist it. They say there is no definite article like ‘the’ but there’s also no indefinite article like ‘a’ or ‘an’ in Greek so any use of them must be added by English translator. This is grammatically acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the meaning. In Greek, a word’s function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word’s root. There are 2 case endings for the root theo. One with s and one with n. S normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence while n identifies a noun as the direct object. Theos and logos both have the s so which is the subject? Examine the next rule: in cases where two nouns appear and take the same case ending, the author will add a definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John did this for logos instead of theos. So, logos is the subject and theos is the predicate nominative. In English this equals the Word was God. It’s very telling that whatever they’re doing here, is not applied consistently throughout John. Theon occurs without a definite article and the NWT never renders it as ‘a god’ any other time. Even worse is that in John 1:18 they translate the same term as both God and god.
Col 1 other has been inserted but check the interlinear. It’s not there and doesn’t even imply it. You would only add that if you were reading something into the text and not letting it speak for itself. You’re not meant to add or take away from scripture.
The website says they don’t rely on their translation, but these JW corrupted verses clearly show they do.
Website says your beliefs come from the raw material of the bible without any presuppositions but that can’t be true if they inserted Jehovah (a Hebrew word) into the Greek NT even though it wasn’t it any manuscripts, they went against thousands of manuscripts (some which date back to the 2nd century) by forcing Jehovah into the text. They took out theos and kurios in over 60 places.
We know Jesus responded to all 3 temptations with scripture. And we know God is not the author of confusion, so it seems if Satan wants to, he needs to cast doubt upon the bible because it doesn’t leave room for false doctrine, isn’t that what the leaders of this organization have done by accusing the bible of corruption and writing their own?
If the bible has been corrupted how did Russell figure this out? The corruptors in theory, should have blotted out everything that doesn’t line up with their beliefs. But they seem to leave verses in there that could challenge their position. This seems untenable. If you’re going to the trouble to edit and deceive, you’re not going to do a half job of it.
4. The Holy Spirit
JW say the spirit is an it not a he. An impersonal active force. No thoughts, feelings, desires, will. Unfortunately for them, the bible gives the Holy Spirit all these things.
He has insight (1 Cor 2:10-13, Heb 9:8), He knows things, which requires consciousness/intellect (Rom 8:27), has a will (1 Cor 12:11), He convicts of sin (John 16:8), performs miracles (Acts 8:39), He guides (John 16:13), intercedes between people (Rom 8:26), He is to be obeyed (Acts 10:19-20), He can be lied to (Acts 5:3), and resisted (Acts 7:51), grieved (Eph 4:30, Isa 63:10), blasphemed (Mt 12:31), insulted (Heb 10:29), related to apostles (Acts 15:28), and relates to each member of Trinity (Jn 16:14, Mt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14). He can be pleased (Rom 8:5, 9-10). The Spirit LIVES and is ALIVE (Rom 8:11), be fellowshipped with (2 Cor 13:14). He can also send messages Isa 48:16. In the old and New Testament, he speaks. Acts 13:2-and speaks as if He is God no less “Set apart for me…to which I have called them” Rom 8:26-27.
Unfortunately for us, they sweep ALL of that under the rug as personification of an impersonal force. Because sin and wisdom and other things are personified, the Holy Spirit must be like that as well! This is CRAZY because they think wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8 and yet they STILL think that person is Jesus! So, there is 2 competing theories. What would make them actually believe it is a person if all the personal attributes don’t? With my explanation, no extra steps and maneuvering must be done, but for them they have no reason at all to say the text is being metaphorical. Its circular, it assumes what needs to be proved. This is evidence of the Holy Spirits personhood so you can’t just say no its not because He isn’t a person. When it personifies wisdom, its for a whole chapter so you can clearly see its part of what the author is doing. But you would have to claim for no reason at all that every single time the Holy Spirit has personal attributes, they are all doing the exact same poetic technique. Why? Why are they doing it and why is it not obvious? Can you at least see how if it is an impersonal force that God has made it wildly easy for people to come away with a different understanding?
Is it not a fair interpretation that The Holy Spirit is called God or at least is the equivalent here in Acts 5:3-5.
Romans 8 says the Holy Spirit is in us and also the Spirit of Christ is as well…Do we have 2 extra spirits in us? Or are they actually the same in essence?
They say because the Holy Spirit doesn’t have a name, he is not a person. But what about the unclean spirit in Lk 4:31-36. When they are not named, they are identified by their characteristic, such as…Holy.
They say persons can’t enter other persons. But Jesus casts spirits out of people.
And the Spirit of Christ was in the OT prophets (1 Pet 1:11) and following verse renames this spirit as the Holy Spirit.
JW’s take out “the” in the Greek when it precedes Holy Spirit.
In the KJV in 1 John 5:7-8, it looks like a strong verse for Trinitarianism. But the JW website points out that Dr. Bruce Metzger has said it doesn’t belong in there. I find it interesting that they cite this scholar because he has also said of the JW bible translation that it is a “frightful mistranslation erroneous, pernicious and reprehensible”.
When it comes to the holy spirit they say it is impersonal because you can find it listed among impersonal things in verses, but with this logic the father son and holy spirit are all equal in mt 28:19 (baptizing verse).
5. Jesus is Michael the Archangel
Convoluted doctrine. No clear teaching. First they have to establish Michael as the only Archangel and then ignore the verses which say he is only "one of" the chief princes (Dan 10:13 and 12:1 and Jude 1:9). Then they make a weak case that Jesus is created and his similarities to Michael must make him Michael and then top it off with one really bad interpretation of "coming with the voice of an archangel." At every stage, and with almost every doctrine, they have to read their conclusion into the text.
Jesus comes down with 3 things. It is inconsistent to suggest he is only one of them. If he is an archangel because he comes with the voice of one, then how is he not also God because he comes with the trumpet of God as well. The bigger problem is that the shout could just be from Jesus and the voice of the archangel just be from an archangel. You wouldn’t say Jesus is making the trumpet sound himself. He is coming WITH as in associated with not with as in he is producing it. Why not take that which makes far more sense than unnecessarily saying two different people are the same. Why be so vague about it? Especially if it’s the only verse they have to learn about Jesus’ identity.
This forces them to believe that when Jesus is born, Michael ceases to exist, and then Michael comes back when Jesus rises. So why does the name Jesus keep getting used? They compare this to other figures whose names changed but they never went back to their old name and it was always made clear their name was changing but this is a very unnecessarily cryptic doctrine if true.
They say Jesus and Michael both have authority over angels and it doesn’t make sense to say God has them rivalling each other so therefore they are the same person. This is a terrible conclusion when you could reconcile it by saying Jesus is just more superior than Michael. They created a false dichotomy. They would never do this logic with God and Jesus! It is definitely not “more reasonable” to say they are the same person. Satan also has an army Rev 12:7 doesn't make him Jesus. Satan is obviously not scared of Michael if they repeatedly fight. But Satan and his kingdom tremble at Jesus. Jude 1:9. Michael wouldn’t even dare accuse the devil of blasphemy but said the Lord rebuke you!” Very interesting because Jesus is more than happy to rebuke Satan Mt 4:10, Mt 17:18
Hebrews 1. Whole chapter goes to great lengths to seperate Jesus and angels. But good thing they translate everything differently! Angels aren’t meant to accept worship. They say the word means obeisance or a respectful bowing. Jesus "radiates God’s glory". For God never said to "ANY ANGEL" what he said to Jesus. God says to the Son “Your throne o God endures forever. Therefore o God, your God has anointed you.” As well as “In the beginning Lord you laid the foundation of the earth and made the heavens with your hands.” Verse 6 cites Deut 32:43. Verses 10-12 are citing Ps 102:25-27 where David praises Jehovah.
Heaven and Earth were made first and then the hosts within. Gen 2:1 and Neh 9:6. But everything was created through Jesus so where was he? Col 1:16-17 and John 1. They say he existed outside of everything with God and using that verse though he was in “the form of God” counted it not as a thing to be grasped. Whatever they believe about where Jesus existed with God before creation, sounds eerily similar to the Trinity.
And the fact Michael is "one of the chief princes" to which JW's will say 'oh well we just don't know enough to draw conclusions on what that could mean.'
6. The Trinity
Jesus is inferior to the Father
(John 14:28) “The Father is greater than I” Notice, he doesn’t say “God is better than I”, monarchical trinitarianism accounts for this. You would think if Jesus wasn’t God and just a man or just an angel (which isn’t taught at all), then saying “The Father is greater than I” would be incredibly dumb given how obvious it is! This makes great sense with the Trinity and the fact that Jesus humbled himself as Phil 2:6-8 says. He voluntarily became dependent on the Father. This applies to Jesus not knowing the hour as well. Yes, we think He is God but we don’t think the fact that he isn’t constantly glowing is a big deal. He doesn’t use his full God capacity while on earth and it comes back to Phil 2:6-8. The transfiguration is an example of him accessing his capacity however. And in this very passage there’s obviously more going on since he says in v9 “anyone who has seen me has seen the father.” And in v7 “if you had really known me, you would know who my Father is.”
(1 Cor 11) “The head of Christ is God” Differences in roles do not mean inferiority. Unfortunately for JW’s, they have to say if Jesus is inferior to the Father, then women are inferior to men. This would make sense of why Gen 1 says he created them male and female in his image. Part of that image was a unity in plurality and loving co-operative submission.
(1 Cor 15:28) Jesus will “be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” This does not teach inequality in the God head. It teaches roles. A woman submitting to her husband does not make her less than him. Paul even uses this as an example in
Jesus was Created
(Proverbs 8:22) They say wisdom is personified but also Jesus. It is completely consistent to just say it is wisdom personified and nothing more. So why do they go so much further with it? Because v22 says God formed wisdom, so therefore if they can make that Jesus then they have a created Jesus. If this is the logic, then Jesus is also a woman, and verse 27 onwards makes it sound like Jesus watched everything be created even though JW’s think Jesus did the creating. And v30 says Jesus is the architect, JW’s say God is the architect. And it says he was at Jesus’ side; how does that not signify equality? But the other obvious problem, doesn’t say anywhere this is Jesus and nowhere in the bible claims it. Another thing being read in. And yet another problem, is that most bible scholars translate the verb qanah as possess rather than produce. Logically, it cannot be the word ‘produced/created’ because wisdom, like morality is a part of God’s nature, it cannot be created it just is just as God is. It is an essential attribute of God. Unless they want to say that before he created wisdom, he lacked it. Oh and the other thing, they say the Holy Spirit isn’t a person because every indication that he is (of which there are countless) JW’s dismiss as personification as if this means he can’t be a person. Which means if wisdom is personified here then it can’t be referring to a person…
(John 1) It seems that almost everything about this chapter goes against JW’s. Jesus cannot have been created if everything that was created was only created through Jesus v3. Col 1 and Heb 1 echo this. Verse 3 is very very specific here. You cannot get around it. And that’s not even mentioning verse 1 which everyone knows their translation has butchered because of how damning it is for them. Though they translate it ‘a god’ in v1, it is the same Greek word in John 3:16 which they would say is Jehovah. More discussion on that in the translation section. V4 echoes this too. Incidentally, in v42 it also shows what happens when there is a name change in the bible. 1 verse is all it takes to tell people that a name is changed. Not 5 different verses not even mentioning a name change.
(Heb 1:6) “And when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, let all God’s angels worship him.” So this is the verse they use to show Jesus is a created being. They use a verse where he is worshiped by angels. Great start. The same chapter that says Jesus radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, very nice for the Trinity. And the same chapter that says the universe was created through the Son. The same chapter where God says a whole bunch of things to the Son that he’s never said to ANY angel. An archangel is an angel. This chapter leaves no room for that. The same chapter where God says to Jesus “Your Throne O God endures forever…Therefore o God, your God has anointed you.” So, God is talking to himself?? He also calls the Son Lord and points out that he laid the foundations and made everything with his hands. But the Bible is pretty clear that GOD made everything…The same chapter that equates God’s enemies to Jesus’ enemies…The problems for JW’s don’t stop there, first born doesn’t have to literally mean the first one born. In fact, when it comes to rank, it doesn’t mean this at all. God calls David the firstborn despite being the YOUNGEST sons of Jesse (Ps 89:27). Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s only begotten son but he wasn’t, was he? It’s not about procreation it’s about relation. In the Septuagint Exodus 4:22, Israel is God’s firstborn but they were not the first nation ever created, were they? They are a nation chosen by God to occupy a place of high honor and esteem. And everything that has just been mentioned in the context is exactly why you would interpret it as rank.
(Rev 3:14) “…the one who is…the beginning of God’s new creation.” The Greek word arche can mean beginning, but it can also mean origin or source of a thing, or ruler or authority. From the earliest English translators to the best scholars of today, it is understood that context indicates it means beginning in the sense of origin or source of creation. God is also called the beginning ‘arche’ but JW’s would never say this means God is created (Rev 21:5-7). In the first chapter of Revelation here is what God claims v8 and in the last chapter here is what Jesus claims v13.
Jesus is God
(Zech 12) God says “They will look on me, the one they have pierced” looking at God and piercing him is impossible without Jesus being God.
(Mt 20:22-23) JW’s cite this but don’t seem to absorb the sandwich it is in. Before and after this he explains in a couple of ways that the first will be last. Leaders become servants. Being submissive doesn’t make you less but more.
(Mt 27:46) JW’s cite this but Trinitarians have a fine understanding of this. The Father had to turn away and let Jesus have the full human experience and take on all our sin. He took on the world’s sin and sin separates you from God.
(John 5) V18 shows that Jews knew that he was making himself equal to God. V23 people are to honor the Son as they honor the Father. Very weird when the Bible says honor and glory alone belong to God.
(John 8) Jesus calls himself ‘I am’ in the same way that the Father refers to Himself. Which is again, why the Jews wanted to kill him.
(John 10) For some reason, JW’s cite v34-35. Not if you make them read the whole chapter. It starts off by comparing people to sheep. Jesus calls himself the gate (through which people are saved) and he calls himself the shepherd. And saying people/sheep belong to him. On JW doctrine, shouldn’t Jesus just be the gate? And v30 he says him and the Father are one. Very consistent for Trinitarians. And the Jews knew full well what Jesus was claiming because they went to stone him for “making himself God” v33. Which they wanted to do in many places including this one John 19:6-7. And 10:38, he is in the father and the father is in him.
(John 16:26-27) This is a chapter full of “personifying” the Holy Spirit but absolutely no reason to take that explanation seriously. V15, all that belongs to the Father belongs to Jesus. V27-28 he came from the Father and God. V30 Jesus knows everything.
(John 17) JW’s cite this despite it being great for Trinitarians. V1 Jesus is asking for God to glorify him. Glory only belongs to God. Jesus enjoyed fellowship and glory with the father before the world began. V11 Jesus wants us humans to be united as Him and the Father are united. V21 echoes this saying the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.
(Col 1) They cite v15-16. Even though they look great for Trinitarians. Not only is he the visible image of the invisible God but he existed BEFORE all things were created. Their version dishonestly inserts ‘other’ even though the Greek doesn’t even imply it. V17 echoes this. V19!!! V27 carries on the idea that Christ is in us even though it’s said in a million other places the Holy Spirit is in us. And the power of God is at work in us. We must have a lot of spirits inside us if the Trinity is false. JW say there is no reason to think firstborn is talking about rank rather than order of birth. Is that like how there’s no reason to personify the Holy Spirit? Especially when that logic cancels out wisdom being Jesus in Pro 8? They say there is no reason to do this but the fact that nothing was created without him is pretty great reason!! The firstborn argument is addressed in Heb 1 section.
(2 Cor 4:4) JW’s have a strange habit of using verses that support the Trinity. Jesus has the “Exact likeness of God.” and in v6 the glory of God is seen on his face.
Jesus and God Parallels
Since they use parallels as reasons for Jesus and Michael being the same person (they both have an army of angels) then surely, we can use this same wonderful logic to show Jesus is actually God!
In just Rev 22 (that’s right, the similarity is in the same chapter unlike all the jumping around JW’s must do!) we see God sending an angel to reveal to people what’s to take place (v6) and then later in v16 Jesus ALSO claims to be the one who sent the angel who reveals things.
Who are Jesus’ enemies in Mt 22:44? Are they not also God’s enemies?
Isa 48 Along with using the First and Last title for himself, God also says “It was my hand that laid the foundations of the earth, my right hand that spread out the heavens above.” Isa 44:24 also confirms that it was God that created alone. But JW’s believe God used Jesus/Michael to create everything.
Isa 43 God calls Israel by name, the people are his, but Jesus calls himself the gate and shepherd and says people are his. And his people listen to his voice when he calls them.
Isa 43:3, 10-11. God alone is God and there is no other savior. And Tit 3:4 agrees with this but goes on to then call Jesus our Savior.
Isa 44:6 God says “I am the First and the Last, there is no other God.” and if we needed more confirmation in 48:12, he repeats “I alone am God, the First and the Last. It was my hand that laid the foundations of the earth…” So isn’t it strange that Jesus calls himself this in Rev 1? And Rev 21? And Rev 22? If God and a created being could both separately be called by these exact same titles in the exact same context in the exact same book, the titles become completely meaningless. Far from denying Jesus’ divinity, the title of “the beginning” in Revelation actually affirms it!
Only God should be worshiped. Yet the disciples worshiped Jesus in Mt 28:9 and 17. The angels in Heb 1 worship Jesus. The wise men worshiped him in Mt 2:11, his disciples again worship in in Mt 14:33.
John 16:15. Jesus owns everything the Father does.
Honor and glory belong to God 1 Tim 1:17 and Eph 3:20. John 17:1 Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him!
In the OT God was Israel’s husband, but in Mt 9:15 and Rev 19:7 Jesus claims to be the bridegroom.
Only God can forgive sins and Jesus claims this ability too Mk 2:5-7, Rev 17:14.
In 1 Tim 6:15, God is called the King of Kings. And in Rev 17:14 and 19:16 this title is applied to Jesus. Lord of Lords is used twice to refer to God the father. And while Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar were referred to as King of Kings. But in Rev 17:14, Jesus is given both titles together and again in reverse order in Rev 19:16.
God and the Lamb both share the throne room and both of their names are on people’s heads in Revelation.
1 Cor 8:5-6 does an interesting parallel here. The two things applied to the father are also applied to Jesus. Very interesting. Even if you can’t believe the Trinity intellectually, for all intents and purposes and practically speaking they may as well be the same.
Exo 3:14 God calls himself "I am" and Jesus also uses this for himself.
Other Verses
(Gen 1:26) “Let us create” JW’s say Jesus was the builder, but what about “our image”? The Father is talking to Jesus like they have the same image. Like they are of the same nature and substance. And it only switches to this plural language when it talks about God creating humans. It was a solitary God creating before that. But it makes sense when you consider the plurality and unity of humans.
(Gen 18-19) the Lord appeared to Abraham yet as 3 persons.
(Gen 22) The Angel speaks as if he is God “You have not withheld from me”
(Amos 4:10-11) implies plurality
(Mt 16:16) JW’s quote to show Jesus isn’t God. But if you read the whole chapter, Jesus talks about how HE just fed everyone. He claimed he was doing everything through God so why is he taking credit?
(John 8:38) JW’s use to say Jesus is not God. But it looks great for Trinitarians and at the end of the chapter the Jews again want to stone him because they knew what he was claiming about himself when he said before Abraham was “I am” which is a citation of Exo 3:14 where God calls himself that.
(John 16:26-27) This is a chapter full of “personifying” the Holy Spirit but absolutely no reason to take that explanation seriously. V15, all that belongs to the Father belongs to Jesus. V27-28 he came from the Father and God. V30 Jesus knows everything.
(John 20:16-17) This is the chapter where Thomas says My Lord and my God! And it’s the chapter where he wants to see the wounds from the NAILS (plural) indicating a cross.
(1 Pet 1:2) little example of the cooperative nature of the Trinity.
(Phil 2:6-7) JW’s cite this even though the point he was making was that Jesus was God in nature but chose not to cling to it. If he couldn’t claim to be God the verse is completely redundant and makes no sense being there. Otherwise, you’re saying he is humble because he didn’t think he was God. Which means ANYONE who realizes they’re not God is humble. This chapter explains the idea that the Son humbled himself in obedience to the Father and then the Father elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all name.
(Col 2:8-9) “For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.” Wow. Very clear.
Philosophy
Love is apart of God’s nature (1 Jn 4:8). But love necessitates an affection/commitment to another person. How could God truly be love without another person to share the love with? Further, without the Trinity he cannot be love or have love until he creates something to love meaning he would be dependent on that creation. Meaning love is an attribute that God doesn’t have until he creates something.
This same logic applies to God being called an everlasting or eternal Father, this makes no sense unless there has always been with Him an eternal Son.
Unitarians must believe in cosmic child abuse. If Jesus existed in past eternity, then he has always had the option to sacrifice himself but if he was created, then he was created for this role that the Father had already decided on.
And without it being God in the flesh that comes down, what right does he have to judge humanity if he has never been in our shoes? Being judged by a standard you yourself don’t or won’t meet is called a hypocrite. Trinitarians don’t have to assume God is a hypocrite. It is only right for a child to accept discipline from a parent because that parent has once been where they are.
And without Jesus being God, sin is not sufficiently dealt with. The world’s sin is paid for by Jesus taking it all on. You need an eternal payment, an eternal sacrifice. You cannot have another created being paying for another created being’s sin.
Trinity is Pagan
They point out other beliefs where 3 gods are grouped together. Anything that even comes close to the concept of a trinity in paganism comes after the time of Jesus. Or isn’t any sort of resemblance at all. There are plenty of beliefs that group 2 or 4 deities together but of course they aren’t convenient for what they’re trying to argue.
Many think Constantine invented deity of Christ in 4th century. But here is a list of quotes about Jesus being God that all predate the Council of Nicaea. Make them back up their claims. Bart Ehrman points out everyone already agreed Jesus was divine
Polycarp (AD 69-155) a disciple of John the Apostle. “the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ…who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ”
Ignatius (AD 50-117) a disciple of John the Apostle. “…by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God” and “once you took on new life through the blood of God” and “God in man” and “our God, Jesus the Christ” and “when God appeared in human form” and “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise”
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) a Christian apologist, “And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” and “to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts” and “deserving to be worshipped as God and as Christ.”
Melito of Sardis (died in AD 180) “God put to death” and “because they slew God”
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) he studied under Polycarp the disciple of John. “He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God and Lord, and King Eternal” and “He was very God” and “Christ Himself, therefore, together with the father, is the God of the living.”
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) “He alone being both God and man”
As well as Tertullian and Hippolytus and Origen.
And with many of their pagan accusations of the Trinity the citations are demonstrably deceptive misquotes. Making the complete opposite point of the original source
Ø There are quite a few examples of the Watchtower deceptively quoting sources regarding the Trinity. This is actually despicable. They do this in Should You Believe in the Trinity?
ü (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethic p461) “At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference.” Here’s how they quoted it “At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…”
ü (The Triune God by Edward Fortman) “They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.” Here’s how the Watchtower manipulates it-they just leave out the next highly relevant sentence!!
ü And they do that continuously for many others, from The Encyclopedia Americana, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Origin and Evolution of Religion it’s so disgusting and immoral what they have to do.
Plus they shoot themselves in the foot yet again because the Father and Son concepts that JW's also have to believe in, appears throughout pagan god stories too!
7. Blood Transfusions https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php
Because the Israelites are told to not eat blood, therefore blood from humans cannot be used or shared to save each other’s life. Makes sense.
Even with this policy, they have fluctuated and changed (quite possibly because so many JW’s had died on account of it). In (Awake! 1956, Sep 8, Pg 20) they say Albumin can’t be used. Then in (1982, Awake! 622, pg 25) “witnesses religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins and hemophiliac preparations. Each witness must decide individually.” Albumin used to treat burns. If someone is badly burned, they could need up to 600g of albumin and this requires 45l of whole blood. 9 adults. Albumin is approved and it makes up 2.2% of blood, but they ban platelets and that only makes up .17%. Where does this logic/line blurring come from? And what exactly is this “religious understanding”? They are just changing their minds and not admitting it. They’d rather see people die than admit they’re wrong.
Also changed on organ transplants as (Watchtower, Nov 15, 1967, pg70) said “those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human that is cannibalistic” and then in (1994, Awake! May 22, pg 7) it condones heart transplants. Again another clear indication the most common ones that kill their followers need to be loosened. (Watchtower, 1980, Mar 15, pg 31) also allows taking in of others body tissue. This doesn’t even make sense blood not ok but organs and tissue are?
Orthodox Jews are much more meticulous about following these Scriptures in the Law of Moses than the Jehovah’s Witnesses are. Yet, they have no problem accepting blood transfusions, and of all the Christian churches and denominations that claim to uphold the Bible’s principles, the Jehovah’s Witness religion is the ONLY religion that claims that these verses (Genesis 9:3-4; Leviticus 17:13-14; Acts 15:28-29) that speak of not physically eating blood also apply to the transfusion of human blood in the veins of the body.
They make the argument that transfusions are dangerous. but their medical citations are decades out of date. Do you know what’s more dangerous than getting a blood transfusion? NOT GETTING ONE! If you could back up this policy with scripture you wouldn’t need to use such stupid arguments. Out of 28 million transfusions, 58 potential deaths (.00000276%) from 2018. Chances of dying if you refuse? In a study of 125 JW’s that need transfusions and all rejected, 60% died. The GB is dishonest and already knows this, but are just keeping 30-year-old information out there.
Logical contradiction-they cherish life, believe life is to be protected and preserved. Then go ahead and let their followers die because of something so trivial.
This is NOT comparable to Christian martyrs throughout history. That assumes the premise that this theory is correct. You are simply believing what an organization is saying, and letting yourself die. The choice is completely yours, Christians simply faced persecution and death by outside forces, not voluntarily.
What gives the watchtower the right to equate eating blood to using it medically? Jehovah’s witnesses are the only ones who say this so shouldn’t they have evidence or good reason to equate the two things? Why can’t this just be one of the many mistakes they have made? This is why I keep asking you why they are to be trusted above everyone else, they have such unique, exclusive and unbiblical teachings and if they can’t properly be justified then your faith is in the watchtower alone.
Would you not pull an ox out of a well? The law can reasonably be overridden by love. Luke 14. There are times to violate the law. Biblical truth. You’re throwing away life to preserve what symbolizes life (blood). Luke 6. That’s only if you want to grant such a silly idea. Romans 14:14. Col 2.
If a doctor says don’t take this antibiotic, is it okay to change the route of it going into the body? Circular reasoning. Assuming their conclusion true.
On avg, 3 JW’s die a day from this false teaching. Fruits.
8. Spiritual Resurrection
They don't believe in a soul, this would make for a separate discussion with soul arguments.
(1 Cor 15) If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile. JW’s wrongly assume here that natural means physical and spiritual means non-physical. We get a better idea of how he uses these words from earlier in the same letter 2:14-15.
(Jn 2:18-21) clearly saying he is referring to his BODY being raised up. Raising up the same body he died in.
“See my hands and feet” because they were just pierced. And “For a Spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” Luke 24:38-40. And in John 20: he shows them his side where he was pierced. AND to further prove it, he takes some food and eats it.
On top of that, his body was no longer in the tomb. The text has gone out of its way to show that he had a physical body. And JW’s MUST read their own ideas in.
They say his body was a manifestation the same way angels were in the OT, the only difference of course is the most obvious thing about it all, Jesus was BORN into a physical body and he was saying his risen body was the same one!
(Luke 24:39) Couldn’t have made it more obvious.
JW’s have a lot in common with pharisees, both denied Trinity and physical resurrection of Christ. Michael logic, JW’s must be pharisees!
9. Military and Passivism
War
Political Neutrality
10. Jehovah's Name
"...he honors his worshippers by inviting them to address him by his personal name" and then go on to cite 3 verses that do not do that. In a different article however they do cite a good one, Joel 2:32 "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." Gee isn't that funny, because Acts 2:21 and Acts 4:12 sure make it sound like Jesus is the name that gets people saved. They quote Jer 23:27 but it would be very difficult for them to make an actual case that this applies to english bible translators!
If God so often refers to himself as a father then JW's simplistic logic is better aligned with the idea that you don't call your parents by their first names as that is dishonoring.
They acknowledge that most scholars prefer Yahweh but say Jehovah is most widely recognized. That is bs and proven by the fact that they don't expand on that. There was no J in the Hebrew, if anything its yehova. They take pride in calling him by something that is incorrect. Russell didn’t know this because he didn’t know Hebrew. They keep repeating the idea that it's commonly translated Jehovah but follow up with nothing.
They also take great pride in having a great translation and not reading a corrupted one like Trinitarians but the NWT adds the name Jehovah in a lot of places in the NT despite it not being there in the Greek at all.
Shouldn't the fact that we have lost it's original pronunciation be a good indication that it doesn't matter to God? He would have preserved somewhow if it was.
10. Sources
James White
Book Crisis of Conscience
コメント