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?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 60 by polonius.advice]

The Yahoo link is forbidden for some reason. I would have liked to seen those.

[JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE: Not at all. What is under discussion is the supposedly inerrant nature (or the claim of "God breathed") for all scripture.

You are welcome to start another thread on that, but the point I was making is that Mary stated she was a virgin and since it is not allowed in this forum to ask anyone to first prove that the bibe is true and her statement us *in* the bible then unless you have a biblical couterarguement to this then the point stands.

JW

[polonius]

[Replying to post 62 by JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE: Perhaps you still don't understand the restriction. It has to do with what is in the canon or scripture, not the accuracy of scripture.

But by now it seems that most readers probably understand that you will not
address the question as to how called "God breathed" scripture contains so many contradictions and so can't "God breathed" after all.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 62 by JehovahsWitness]

But by now it seems that most readers probably understand that you will not address the question as to "..."God breathed"

That is correct I have no interest in your interpretation of what God breathed means or in discussing that a this moment in time. If you want to make a comment as to Mary's statement that she was a virgin that doesn't involve questioning the origins or veracity of the text in question feel free otherwise your points are irrelevant.


JW

[polonius]

JW continues to insist that

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've already demonstrated some contradictions in the Bible.

Perhaps you should ask the moderator if he was really claiming the bible is totally without error. Do you?

Given the plain meaning of words, I doubt that he (she) was.

Absolute biblical inerrantcy is the claim of many fundamentalists. I doubt that is what the moderator was claiming.

However, rather than point out further contradictions in scripture, perhaps, I will start on scriptural inerrancy as a belief system.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Excellent so I'll ignore all your subsequent comments on this point.

I've already demonstrated some contradictions in the Bible.

If you are claiming Mary's statement of her virginity (which is the only point I was makin) contradicted something in scripture I would be interested in your scriptural support for such a claim. Feel free to present what her statement contradicts.


JW

[polonius]

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.

Excellent so I'll ignore all your subsequent comments on this point.

I've already demonstrated some contradictions in the Bible.

If you are claiming Mary's statement of her virginity (which is the only point I was makin) contradicted something in scripture I would be interested in your scriptural support for such a claim. Feel free to present what her statement contradicts.


JW

RESPONSE: It contradicts the facts of biology. The misinterpretation of :almah" young woman"( as virgin or not) as "Parthanose" occurred in the Septuagint Bible written by Hebrew speaking Jews.

In his 80 AD gospel, the writer we call Matthew included this error, now corrected in reliable bibles such and the World Council of Churches New Revised Standard Version.
Isaiah 7:14 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as virgin is an inadequacy of the Septuaginct which became Christain doctrine through the quotation in the New Testament compiled by the council of Nicea in circa 350 AD (by which time it was a thoroughly un-Jewish religious group).

[JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE: It contradicts the facts of biology..

Well then speaking soley for myself, personally if I had any intension of discussung biology, Id mossey over to the scientce and religion sub forum and discuss that. If my memory serves me correctly we're in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum which is why I do believe I asked if Mary's statement contradiction anything in scripture.


Are you suggesting that what Luke reports in Luke 1:34 somehow contradicts Isaiah 7:14 (or even Mat 1:23) ?

JW

[polonius]

JW posted:

polonius.advice wrote:

RESPONSE: It contradicts the facts of biology..

Well then speaking soley for myself, personally if I had any intension of discussung biology, Id mossey over to the scientce and religion sub forum and discuss that.

RESPONSE: You certainly should.


You would learn that:

From the NIH National Library of Medicine:

‘In humans, each cell normally contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46. Twenty-two of these pairs, called autosomes, look the same in both males and females. The 23rd pair, the sex chromosomes, differ between males and females. Females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.�

If Jesus had no physical male parent, he would have only 23 chomosomes and hence not fully human. More importantly, since a woman never has a ‘Y� chromosome to transmit to an offspring, Jesus would have been a woman, not a man.

If my memory serves me correctly we're in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum which is why I do believe I asked if Mary's statement contradiction anything in scripture.


Are you suggesting that what Luke reports in Luke 1:34 somehow contradicts Isaiah 7:14 (or even Mat 1:23) ?

RESPONSE: Yes

The "nativity narratives" error in Matthews and Luke apparently were added later, although Mark (written )first) and John (written last] never picked them up, nor are they ever referred to in Matthew and Luke beyond the nativity narratives.

Once again, if you consult history, you will find that the anonymous writer we now call Matthew, was not the Evangelist Matthew. He wrote about 80 AD basing his legend on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 which actually reads:

Isaiah 7:14 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Produced ny the World Council of Churches

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The Pentateuch mistranslated the Hebrew “almah� or young woman as “Parthenos� or virgin, It’s since been corrected in major new Bible translations such as The New Revised Standard Bible (World Council of Churches) and the New American Bible.

2 Solomon tells us the Messiah will descend from both David and Solomon. According to Luke, Mary descended from Nathan who was never a king of Israel and not in the David-Solomon bloodline.

HINT: Continuing to repeat the same errors does not make then any less errors.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 69 by polonius.advice]

So are you claiming Luke's report represents a biblical contradiction?