Jehovah's Witnesses: Jesus is the Creator

[Faber]

Job 9:8
Who alone stretches out the heavens
And tramples down the waves of the sea. (NASB)

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
“I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone (NASB)

God "alone" is the Creator and yet the Jehovah's Witnesses affirm that the Lord Jesus shared in the creation.
Insight on the Scriptures: Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION. (Volume 2, Jesus Christ)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451

Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Lord Jesus is God despite the fact that He shared in the creation when the Bible teaches that God "alone" did it?

[polonius]

RESPONSE: No. The "Virgin births " in Matthew resulted from a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 which has been corrected in modern Bibles.

No the idea of the virgin birth comes from Mary telling the angel Gabriel that she'd never had SEX.

RESPONSE: That's just a story written 80 years after the fact.

Well it's in the bible canon and the bible canon is authorative in this forum. Do you have a more substantial to offer or are you simply asking "How do we know the bible (canon) is true?"
viewtopic.php?t=3168

RESPONSE: I am not questioning the correct "canon" of the bible any more than am I questioning the correct canon of the Koran.

I am questioning if all the facts presented by the Bible are still considered true. For example, Psalm 104 tells us the the the earth cannot be moved from which until about 1600 AD the biblical basis for believing that the sun rotated around the earth.

Are you trying to argue that this forum requires readers to believe that? Do you really believe that the sun revolves around the earth?

"Canon" and "accuracy" are two different terms with two different meanings.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am questioning if all the facts presented by the Bible are still considered true

Emphasis MINE

So I presented my arguments from the bible, are you asking me to first prove the bible is true?
viewtopic.php?t=3168


If not what is your point? The bible reports Mary as stating she was a virgin. Therefore I propose that she was a virgin based on the contents of the bible. Believe what you like (I couldn't care less) but what is your counterargument? Is your counterargument to question if the bible (report) is true? If not what is it you are arguing?

[polonius]

I am questioning if all the facts presented by the Bible are still considered true

Emphasis MINE

So I presented my arguments from the bible, are you asking me to first prove the bible is true?
viewtopic.php?t=3168

RESPONSE: No. I'm asking you if you consider all the stories in the Bible to be historically correct?.


If not what is your point? The bible reports Mary as stating she was a virgin.

RESPONSE: A number of unmarried girls in hy high school class made the same claim. Should I believe them?

[quote} Therefore I propose that she was a virgin based on the contents of the bible. Believe what you like (I couldn't care less) but what is your counterargument? Is your counterargument to question if the bible (report) is true? If not what is it you are arguing?

The virgin birth story was evidently not in the gospel of Matthew but was added later.

Reference:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Ebionites, perhaps the first Christians, defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia

“ Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law.�

“They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18),�

Keep in mind that our version of Matthew’s gospel was written much later sometime around 300 AD. It was not the original.

Both our copysof Matthew and Luke's nativity narratives were written around 300 AD and added to their Gospels. These gospels never mentioned if again and Mark and John never mentions it at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

The virgin birth story was evidently not in the gospel of Matthew but was added later.

It could have been added this morning by O J Simpson while eating a bagel in Disney land....the point is Mary's report is in the bible canon now and the bible canon is authorative in this forum.We are here to discuss the contents of the bible. I presented this as evidence to support of my conclusion and you have yet to present any counteraguement.

That is unless you first want me to first prove the bible ( passage) is true?
viewtopic.php?t=3168


Do you have anything substantial to say in response that doesn't include attempting to question the truth of the text in question?

[polonius]

The virgin birth story was evidently not in the gospel of Matthew but was added later.

It could have been added this morning by O J Simpson while eating a bagel in Disney land....the point is Mary's report is in the bible canon now and the bible canon is authorative in this forum

RESPONSE:

Yes. Many would agree that the canon of scripture is "authoritative:" ie that the books in it are traditional. (Yet various religions reject some of them as not being in the canon).

But that's a much different claim that saying the scripture is in inerrant.


For example, the Flood story really came from much older legend.

“The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh dates back nearly 5,000 years and is thought to be perhaps the oldest written tale on the planet. In it, there is an account of the great sage Utnapishtim, who is warned of an imminent flood to be unleashed by wrathful gods. He builds a vast circular-shaped boat, reinforced with tar and pitch, that carries his relatives, grains and animals. After enduring days of storms, Utnapishtim, like Noah in Genesis, releases a bird in search of dry land.�

NB We have two copies of the cuneiform tablets containing this yarn.

Does this sound familiar?

And you haven't yet answered if you believe based on the Bible that the sun revolves around the earth because the earth does not move (Psalms 104) Are you saying that because it in the "canon' it has to be true?

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you saying that because it in the "canon' it has to be true?

It doesn't have to be but it *is*, the evidence to support this is that the bible says all scripture is inspired of God and God doesn't make mistakes. Marys claim is part of the bible (scripture) ergo the bible is true ; here is my supporting scripture 2 Tim 3:16.

That is unless you first want me to first prove the bible is true?
viewtopic.php?t=3168


JW

[polonius]

Are you saying that because it in the "canon' it has to be true?

It doesn't have to be but it *is*, the evidence to support this is that the bible says all scripture is inspired of God and God doesn't make mistakes. Marys claim is part of the bible (scripture) ergo the bible is true ; here is my supporting scripture 2 Tim 3:16.

That is unless you first want me to first prove the bible is true?
viewtopic.php?t=3168


JW

RESPONSE: Let's see you do that. Please start with Psalm 104 about the earth not being moved

[Tcg]

It doesn't have to be but it *is*, the evidence to support this is that the bible says all scripture is inspired of God...

Not quite. One of the books that is now included in the Bible claims this about scripture. There is no way to be sure which books would have been included under this claim, but in certainly doesn't cover the Bible.

The Bible had yet to be compiled at the time 2 Timothy was written. Heck, much of what we now call the New Testament hadn't even been written. It's highly unlikely that the gospels had yet been considered to be scripture so this assertion certainly wouldn't cover Mary's claim.

Marys claim is part of the bible (scripture) ergo the bible is true ; here is my supporting scripture 2 Tim 3:16.

As I've already detailed, the Bible had yet to be compiled at the time 2 Timothy was written so the verse you are claiming provides support couldn't possible be referring to the Bible.

[brianbbs67]

The virgin birth story was evidently not in the gospel of Matthew but was added later.

It could have been added this morning by O J Simpson while eating a bagel in Disney land....the point is Mary's report is in the bible canon now and the bible canon is authorative in this forum

RESPONSE:

Yes. Many would agree that the canon of scripture is "authoritative:" ie that the books in it are traditional. (Yet various religions reject some of them as not being in the canon).

But that's a much different claim that saying the scripture is in inerrant.


For example, the Flood story really came from much older legend.

“The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh dates back nearly 5,000 years and is thought to be perhaps the oldest written tale on the planet. In it, there is an account of the great sage Utnapishtim, who is warned of an imminent flood to be unleashed by wrathful gods. He builds a vast circular-shaped boat, reinforced with tar and pitch, that carries his relatives, grains and animals. After enduring days of storms, Utnapishtim, like Noah in Genesis, releases a bird in search of dry land.�

NB We have two copies of the cuneiform tablets containing this yarn.

Does this sound familiar?

And you haven't yet answered if you believe based on the Bible that the sun revolves around the earth because the earth does not move (Psalms 104) Are you saying that because it in the "canon' it has to be true?

I will let JW answer for himself. But, 104:5 He established the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never totter. JPS

Doesn't mean flat, just fixed to its place.

Job talked of the sphere of the earth. Poorly translate sometimes

https://creation.com/isaiah-40-22-circle-sphere

[polonius]

Are you saying that because it in the "canon' it has to be true?

It doesn't have to be but it *is*, the evidence to support this is that the bible says all scripture is inspired of God and God doesn't make mistakes. Marys claim is part of the bible (scripture) ergo the bible is true ; here is my supporting scripture 2 Tim 3:16.

That is unless you first want me to first prove the bible is true?
viewtopic.php?t=3168


JW

RESPONSE: Did Mary make this claim in 4 BC or did some unsigned writer whom in 135 AD Papais said was Matthew writing about 80 AD make of the virgin birth claim?