Questions about Jesus and JW’s

[MissKate13]

1. Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” This is how the NWT reads (John 1:1).

Do JW’s believe Jesus was a true or false god?

2. JW’s say Jesus is a created being.

When was Jesus (capital or lower case g) created?

I look forward to your responses to one or both questions.

MissKate13

[JehovahsWitness]

I’ve already posted my view.

Thank you so much MissKate, I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into this thread; and your respectful approach. May I ask if your series of proof is finished (I belief we were at #6) or have you more? Maybe we should get back to the OP and you should continue in the series...

Please let me know if I have failed to address any of the points you have posted. I've posted a recap below as this thread is getting quite long and it might be difficult to locate posts.


Be loved and very blessed,

JW

Continued below ...

[JehovahsWitness]

POST #3 How do various translations render John 1:1 ?
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

POST # 76How should John 1:1 be properly translated?
viewtopic.php?p=1112024#p1112024

POST #13 What did Paul mean when he refered to Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15)?
viewtopic.php?p=1111525#p1111525

JESUS = YHWH

Proof # 1

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. (Zechariah 12:10)

EXPLAINED : Who is pierced in Zechariah 12:10 ?( post #112)
viewtopic.php?p=1112235#p1112235

This is how Jesus could say, “I and My Father are one. (John 10:30)

EXPLAINED : John 10:30: What did Jesus mean by My father and I are one?
viewtopic.php?p=1112220#p1112220

• POST #129 What did Jesus mean when he said "If you have seen me you have seen the father" ?
  viewtopic.php?p=1112259#p1112259

• POST #132 Was Jesus declaring himself to be YAHWEH at John 8:58?
  viewtopic.php?p=1112263#p1112263

Proof # 2

...YHWH is the first and last. Jesus is THE FIRST AND LAST

EXPLAINED : Who is "The first and the Last" ? ( post #146)
viewtopic.php?p=1112353#p1112353

Proof # 3
BOTH are the first and last. BOTH are redeemer. [...] BOTH are YHWH!

EXPLAINED : How is it that BOTH Jesus and YHWH are called "The first and the Last" without them being the same person ? ( post #163)
viewtopic.php?p=1112478#p1112478

13 “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.... (Titus 2:13-14)

EXPLAINED :Does Paul call Jesus "our God and Saviour" at Titius 2:13? ( post #161)

Proof # 4

24 “... “I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by Myself spread out the earth,” (Isaiah 44:24 )

EXPLAINED : How could Jesus be with God during creation if Isaiah 44:24 says YHWH was "ALONE" ?( post #170)
viewtopic.php?p=1112561#p1112561

Proof # 5

In the Old Testament, YHWH says, There is no Savior BESIDES ME (Isaiah 43:10; Hosea 13:4)

EXPLAINED : How could be our savior if Hosea 13:4 says "There is no Savior BESIDES ME" ?( post #173)
viewtopic.php?p=1112572#p1112572

Proof # 6

Jesus is EVERLASTING

Micah 5:2 The prophet is speaking of Jesus whose goings forth are from old, from EVERLASTING

EXPLAINED : Does Micah 5:2 mean Jesus had no beginning ?( post #181)
viewtopic.php?p=1112696#p1112696

• POST #216 Did Jesus declare himself YHWH at John 8:24 ?
  viewtopic.php?p=1112954#p1112954

[Eloi]

Those in the heavenly realms sure don’t believe the Watchtower lies. In fact they’re probably disgusted by their countless flip-flops.
(...)

We, Jehovah's witnesses, use the Bible every time we comment a topic, as you clearly can see in this forum. If you don't agree with our posts, it means most probably that you don't accept what the Bible really teaches.

I could see how you think about what the Bible says when I showed you clearly that Jesus said the Father was in heavens ( about 21 times according to Matthew), and you without saying a word about Jesus' teaching, said that your god can be in every place at the same time contrary to what Jesus explicitly said. You are negating what Jesus taught and inventing a god to your liking.

After Jesus was resurrected, he said:

John 20:17 (...) I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.

It is obvious that he was ascending to the place where the Father is (Deut. 26:15; Psal. 33:14; Zech. 2:13) ... but your god is probably not the One Jesus was talking about, the One he called "our Father in heavens" and who would be close to when he ascended to that place he spoke of. We, Jehovah's witnesses, know the God we adore, and He is the God Jesus was talking about in John 20:17, and here:

John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.

PS: I can see that you, like the other forumer, hate Jehovah's witnesses. Are you, like him, another ex-JW? Hopefully you will be honest about that, like he was.

[Difflugia]

We, Jehovah's witnesses, use the Bible every time we comment a topic, as you clearly can see in this forum. If you don't agree with our posts, it means most probably that you don't accept what the Bible really teaches.

That's like claiming that you "use" the dictionary each time you comment because all of the words you use are in it somewhere. I'm sure it's comforting to think otherwise, but people disagreeing with a string of purported proof texts is no more disagreement with what the "Bible really teaches" than it is disagreement with a dictionary. If the Bible were as "clear" as you claim, then you wouldn't need such carefully curated lists of quotations divorced from their biblical contexts to make your "clear" points.

I could see how you think about what the Bible says when I showed you clearly that Jesus said the Father was in heavens

I can see why your treatment of orthodox theology is so facile. If one were to recognize the theological nuance developed over eighteen centuries, one might also recognize that simply ignoring or shouting over equally valid, but competing proof texts is hardly a winning approach to hermeneutics.

You are negating what Jesus taught and inventing a god to your liking.

Something about pots and kettles comes to mind.

PS: I can see that you, like the other forumer, hate Jehovah's witnesses. Are you, like him, another ex-JW? Hopefully you will be honest about that, like he was.

The implication that those that most "hate Jehovah's Witnesses" are also those most familiar with its inner workings isn't quite the devastating ad hominem attack that you seem to think it is. It's like you're accusing someone of having their judgement clouded by too much accurate information.

"I refuse to eat sausage."
"You're just saying that because you used to work in a sausage factory and know exactly how it's made!"

[Ross]

PS: I can see that you, like the other forumer, hate Jehovah's witnesses. Are you, like him, another ex-JW? Hopefully you will be honest about that, like he was.

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?

Eloi, why have you forsaken our previous edifying debate?

Your comment is obviously about me. I do not hate Jehovah's Witnesses. You should not be so presumptuous to attach such negative comments to me personally. Is this against board rules I wonder?
You only know one thing about me.

In my experience, it is Jehovah's Witnesses who hate ex Jehovah's Witnesses, not the other way round. I do have serious issues against your collective theology.

If I may say so, you all have come across as a bunch of smug, condescending and unpleasant bullies against Miss Kate. The only way you can win debate is to smother it with so much material as to make it impossible for a one to one, sentence to sentence, point to point, comparison of views. But this is the way it has always been with The Watchtower. Landslide, smother and cover.

[JehovahsWitness]

DID JESUS DECLARE HIMSELF "THE GREAT I AM" AT JOHN 8:24?

No. Jesus did not use the expression "The Great" anything at John 8:24, the New King James Version there reads ...

JOHN 8:24 - New King James Version

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

So who was Jesus refering to in the verse above? The context clearly indicates Jesus spoke of TWO (not one) individuals. [1] the Father and ... [2] "the Son of Man". With which of the two did Jesus identify ? Jesus self-identified as someone "sent" [verse 26]. (Nowhere in scripture is the Father YHWH, ever refered to as someone sent, rather YHWH is always the sender, never the sendee). Jesus also says he does nothing of his own initiative [verse 28], and the one that always did the things pleasing to The Father [verse29] It is evident Jesus in John 8, identified, not as the Father but as the Son of Man who was obedient to that One.


DOES THE NKJV ADDING A WORD TO JOHN 8:24 CHANGE TGE MEANING?

The English New King James verson adds the word He to John 8:24 (see scripture above). This does not change the meaning of the text, but accurately reflects that Jesus is not using the verb as a proper noun but rather in its classic sense to give information about himself. For who he was identifying as, see paragraph above.

[Difflugia]

No. Jesus did not use the expression "The Great" anything at John 8:24, the New King James Version there reads ...

JOHN 8:24 - New King James Version

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

So who was Jesus refering to in the verse above? The context clearly indicates Jesus spoke of TWO (not one) individuals. [1] the Father and ... [2] "the Son of Man". With which of the two did Jesus identify ?

The English New King James verson adds the word He to John 8:24 (see scripture above). This does not change the meaning of the text, but accurately reflects that Jesus is not using the verb as a proper noun but rather in its classic sense to give information about himself.

The problem with your explanation is that contrary to your assertion, it ignores both the grammar and context of the verse. Without a predicate, ἐγώ εἰμι means something like "I exist." Is there an implied predicate? That's what the various translations are trying to convey. The problem is that the verse has both an implied predicate and no predicate.

The author of John's Gospel loved Greek word play, so it should come as no surprise that her main character did, too. The only character in John whose lines include ἐγώ εἰμι, either with or without a predicate, is Jesus. For the author of John, this is a reference to the ἐγώ εἰμι of the Septuagint's Exodus 3:14. If I were guilty of hermeneutical hubris, I might say that it's clearly so. The author of John is here creating a double entendre similar to the same one she created in other verses. John 4:26 also lacks the predicate, for example, making for slighty awkward Greek. Again, though, it creates a double entendre:

"I know the Messiah is coming!"
"I am he who is speaking to you!" / "I AM is the one speaking to you!"

We see another similar play on words in John 6:20, when Jesus is walking on water and the disciples are frightened.

"It is I; do not be afraid!" / "I AM; do not be afraid!"

To ignore the author's use of Greek in her character's dialogue is to ignore the teachings of her Jesus. John's author isn't telling the same story as Mark, Matthew, or Luke. The Jesus of the Synoptics is independent of the One that sent him. John's Jesus was not only sent by the Father, but was the I AM of the burning bush. Whether one injects John's theology into the Synoptics (as the "trinitarians" you malign do) or ignore the most important and linguistically entertaining part of John's theology (as you do yourself), to pretend that the theologies are compatible is to create a Jesus that doesn't exist anywhere in the New Testament. If one is willing to treat the Bible as truly authoritative, then one must also recognize that there are multiple Jesus characters in the Bible, one of which (and only one of which) is the I AM of Exodus, Yahweh Himself.

[Eloi]

(...) The only character in John whose lines include ἐγώ εἰμι, either with or without a predicate, is Jesus. (...)

That is false.

John 9:8 Then the neighbors and those who formerly used to see that he was a beggar began to say: “This is the man who used to sit and beg, is it not?” 9 Some were saying: “This is he.” Others were saying: “No, but he looks like him.” The man kept saying: “I am he.”

[Difflugia]

John 9:8 Then the neighbors and those who formerly used to see that he was a beggar began to say: “This is the man who used to sit and beg, is it not?” 9 Some were saying: “This is he.” Others were saying: “No, but he looks like him.” The man kept saying: “I am he.”

You're right! I missed one!

How do you think that affects my analysis of Johannine word play?

[Eloi]

John 9:8 Then the neighbors and those who formerly used to see that he was a beggar began to say: “This is the man who used to sit and beg, is it not?” 9 Some were saying: “This is he.” Others were saying: “No, but he looks like him.” The man kept saying: “I am he.”

You're right! I missed one!

How do you think that affects my analysis of Johannine word play?

Since it is "your" analysis, you tell me.