How To Deal with "Jehovah Witness" False Teaching: Tips and Tools
Comments
-
@BroRando posted:
The reason I'm not okay with Christ being removed from any scripture is because it is a demonic and anti-chrsitian doctrine. Just a drop of wormwood is need to kill someone spiritually. SO, if there are 1,000 scriptures and only 1 removed Christ it is still bitter poison.
I didn't ask whether you're "okay with Christ being removed from any scripture." I didn't ask about YOUR views at all. I asked - and now for the fourth time ask again - why would 22 English language translations with what you described as a "bias against Christ" exclude one instance of the word "Christ" (Mark 1.34), but LEAVE IN around 500 other instances of the word "Christ"?
Because we're obviously having difficulty communicating as to the question I'm asking you, here's one format for your reply to take in order to improve the chances that you'll respond to the same question I'm asking: "The reason a Bible translation with what I describe as a bias against Christ would remove just one instance of the word "Christ," but leave in 500 other instances of the word "Christ," is that ________________________." Simply copy/paste that beginning into your post and then replace the line with the reason you think a Bible translation with a bias against Christ would remove only one of 500 or so instances of the word "Christ."
Removing one of 500 instances just doesn't sound like much of a "bias against Christ" to me, so I want to know why you think a Bible translation that was biased against Christ would only remove one of 500 instances of the word. Wouldn't a translation that was "biased against Christ" remove more than one of 500 instances?
-
It's a culmination of removing inspired scripture alittle here and a little there. Christ was removed from Mark 1:134 in Greek. Is that a truth or a lie? We both know it wasn't a mistake.
A little leaven ferments the whole lump of bread. I gave you my answer.
@BroRando The reason I'm not okay with Christ being removed from any scripture is because it is a demonic and anti-chrsitian doctrine. Just a drop of wormwood is need to kill someone spiritually. SO, if there are 1,000 scriptures and only 1 removed Christ it is still bitter poison.
Matthew 16:6
Jesus said to them: “Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Matthew 16:12
Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Removing Christ is not enough for trintarian translators. Many of them, not all, removed God from Revelation 1:8. Is it the same 22 translations?
All I can do is give a witness. This work is being done in all the inhabited earth, then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14) Most who hear will not listen and despise the message, just as in the days of Jesus they despised him. (Isaiah 53:3)
-
@BroRando posted:
It's a culmination of removing inspired scripture alittle here and a little there. Christ was removed from Mark 1:134 in Greek. Is that a truth or a lie? We both know it wasn't a mistake.
A little leaven ferments the whole lump of bread. I gave you my answer.
I didn't ask you about the ultimate effects, if any, of "removing inspired scripture a little hear and a little there." I didn't ask about effects at all. I asked you why a Bible translation with a "bias against Christ" would remove only one of 500 instances of the word "Christ." I've asked you some form of that question five times now and you haven't answered it. (NOTE: "The reason [YOU'RE] not okay with Christ being removed..." was NOT a relevant response to a question that asked NOT for YOUR views, but for the possible rationale of A BIBLE TRANSLATION TEAMS's decisions.) It's now clear to me that you won't address my question - or at least that I've given you more than enough opportunities to address it - so I will stop asking.
As to the other contents of your post:
Christ was removed from Mark 1:134 in Greek. Is that a truth or a lie? We both know it wasn't a mistake.
I don't characterize, and more importantly, I don't think the 22 translation/paraphrase teams would characterize their decision regarding Mark 1.34 as the removal of the word "Christ." Instead, I think the teams would declare that the best available manuscript evidence is that the word "Christ" wasn't in the verse to begin with. You can't "remove" something that isn't there. The review of the manuscript evidence that I conducted led me to conclude that the translations/paraphrases were well within reason to translate the verse as they do. You're welcome to disagree with those teams, but without supporting evidence (and you've presented none) your claims of lies and deception on their parts are baseless and inappropriate.
Removing Christ is not enough for trintarian translators. Many of them, not all, removed God from Revelation 1:8. Is it the same 22 translations?
No Bible translators - neither those who embrace Trinitarian theology nor those who don't - "removed" Christ from Scripture. Your claim is false.
Of the 22 English language Bibles in my Logos installation, 17 include the word "God" in Revelation 1.8. [FWIW, the LEB is NOT among the five that do not include the word "God" in the verse.]
All I can do is give a witness. This work is being done in all the inhabited earth, then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14) Most who hear will not listen and despise the message, just as in the days of Jesus they despised him. (Isaiah 53:3)
The "witness" that you give should be fair, just, accurate, and reflective of both the teachings of Jesus and the God who sent Jesus into the world. In my view, a claim that the purported "removal" of the word "Christ" from ONE verse, while leaving untouched 500 other instances of the same word is neither fair, nor just, nor accurate, nor reflective of Jesus' teachings or the God who sent Jesus into the world. Instead, it is a false witness and should NOT be made.
-
Really, the case you make is empty. Why should I critiize the 500 other instances that Christ is in the scritpures, when I am in agreement with them? I'm critizing the ones that failed to put Christ into scripture.
@Bill_Coley No Bible translators - neither those who embrace Trinitarian theology nor those who don't - "removed" Christ from Scripture. Your claim is false.
I have 22 English language Bibles in my Logos installation. NOT ONE OF THEM includes the word "Christ" in Mark 1.34.
Since you refuse to show which transalation actually has Christ in the scripture. I guess I'll do it, otherwise NOBODY would know.
Literal Emphasis Translation
And He healed many having badly of various diseases, and He cast out many demons. And He did not permit the demons to speak because they knew Him to be Christ.
Goodspeed New Testament
And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and drove out many demons, and he would not let the demons speak, because they knew that he was Christ.
The Emphasized Bible/
and he cured many that were sick with divers diseases, and, many demons, he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking, - because they knew him to be Christ.
Twentieth Century New Testament
Jesus cured many who were ill with various diseases, and drove out many demons, and would not permit them to speak, because they knew him to be the Christ.
-
@BroRando posted:
Really, the case you make is empty. Why should I critiize the 500 other instances that Christ is in the scritpures, when I am in agreement with them?
I've never asked you to criticize the 500 instances of the word "Christ" in the translations that do not include the word in Mark 1.34. Nor have I ever asked whether you agree with the translations of those 500 instances.
I welcome you to declare the cases I make to be "empty," but I ask that you do so based on accurate premises, not false ones.
I'm critizing the ones that failed to put Christ into scripture.Since you refuse to show which transalation actually has Christ in the scripture. I guess I'll do it, otherwise NOBODY would know.
I didn't "refuse" to identify translations that place the word "Christ" in Mark 1.34. The thought of including such citations in my posts didn't cross my mind any more than the thought of listing/quoting all the translations that do NOT place "Christ" in that verse came to yours. I was satisfied to rely on the 22 English language Bibles in my Logos installation to make my point. I knew of the NWT's inclusion of the word, and am not surprised that there are others - though I can't say that I'm familiar with any of the ones from which you quoted.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
Well, I have asked for scriptures of the one did have Christ. So the things you told me about being just and fairness can now be applied to your Logos Software in only showing scriptures that fell short of Christ. I'm confident that if the Logos Software had the one with Chrsit listed you would have been enough of a person to forward what they had. Just beware of it's bias of not showing both side. Anyways a parallel scripture can be found at Lu 4:41 that gives support to the using of Christ which I think most translations are in agreement.
This reminds me of a teaching that Jesus was teaching his Apostles. "Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
-
I won't ask you about this because you have demonstrated that you won't answer my questions, but your citation of Luke 4.41 damages your argument about leaving Christ out of Mark 1.34.
ALL 22 of the English language Bibles in my Logos installation refer to "Christ" (or "Messiah") in Luke 4.41. If in their translations of Mark 1.34 those 22 translations show themselves to be "Anti-Christ," as you have alleged, why did ALL OF THEM allow "Christ" into what you call a "parallel verse," Luke 4.41? If their intent was to remove Christ from Mark 1.34, why didn't ANY OF THEM also remove Christ from the parallel verse in Luke 4? The answer is that the best available manuscript information did not support inclusion of the word "Christ" in Mark 1.34, but DID support its inclusion in Luke 4.41, so the translations chose not to include it in one and include it in the other.
No conspiracy. No evil intent. No AntiChrists.
-
I know that's why I cited it. This shows you didn't mind blowing your horn when Christ is inserted Luke 4:41.... but made up enpty excuses when Christ was not inserted. You never knew Christ was in (Mark 1:34) until a jehovah's Witnees pryed your eyes open to show you that Chrsit was mean to be in the scritpure. You denied denied denied until I did the work for you and showed it to you.
So the translators knew Christ was in the scritpure because a parallel scripture has it. And they had the Greek text also supported that Chrsit was used and yet, Christ was rejected. You might want get some honest software that shows all scritpures in stead of a bias interpretation. The Logos Software is deceptive. I can expose in the future, if you continue down the broad path of deception.
Since you were Deceived by the Logos Software, you made no apologies. But you blame me... I'm sure glad that both sides of this issue can be read..... I fought for Christ and you fought against him no change in your hard heartedness.
Did you kow what happen to thos people who were hard hearted?
Deuteronomy 9:6
Know, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that Jehovah your God is giving you this good land to take possession of, because you are an obstinate people.
Acts 13:181 Corinthians 10:9-10
And for a period of about 40 years, he put up with them in the wilderness.
1 Corinthians 10:9-10
Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents. Neither be murmurers, as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer.
-
More falsehoods and distractions from one of your posts, @BroRando; disappointing.
I know that's why I cited it. This shows you didn't mind blowing your horn when Christ is inserted Luke 4:41.... but made up enpty excuses when Christ was not inserted.
- The word "Christ" was not "inserted" into Luke 4.41. It was IN the verse to begin with, according to the best available manuscript evidence. The only verse into which "Christ" has been "inserted," according to the best available manuscript evidence, is Mark 1.34 as translated by the NWT and a small number of other translations.
- I didn't "blow [my] horn" about the word's presence in Luke 4.41; I simply noted its presence there and commented about the ramifications of its presence in concert with its absence in Mark 1.34.
- The best available manuscript evidence for a Bible verse is NOT a collection of "empty excuses."
You never knew Christ was in (Mark 1:34) until a jehovah's Witnees pryed your eyes open to show you that Chrsit was mean to be in the scritpure. You denied denied denied until I did the work for you and showed it to you.
- I STILL don't know that the word "Christ" is in Mark1.34. According to the best available manuscript evidence and the overwhelming majority of translations, the word "Christ" is NOT in that verse. Therefore, you have NOT shown me that "Christ was meant to be in the scripture."
- My denials of your assertions regarding Mark 1.34 were grounded in trustworthy sources of information that I gathered by doing the work for myself. Your did your work, too, but your work did NOT show me that "Christ" belongs in Mark 1.34.
So the translators knew Christ was in the scritpure because a parallel scripture has it. And they had the Greek text also supported that Chrsit was used and yet, Christ was rejected.
Your claim is clearly false. The presence of the word "Christ" in Luke 4.41 and around 500 other places in the NT shows that translators ARE willing to include "Christ" when the best available manuscript evidence supports such an action. The translators knew that the best available manuscript evidence supported the inclusion of "Christ" in Luke 4.41, but NOT in Mark 1.34.
You might want get some honest software that shows all scritpures in stead of a bias interpretation. The Logos Software is deceptive. I can expose in the future, if you continue down the broad path of deception.
Logos Bible Software quotes Bible translations exactly as they read. It would be dishonest for the software to quote a translation in ANY other way other than accurately.
Accurate presentation of Bible translations is nothing close to a "broad path of deception."
Since you were Deceived by the Logos Software, you made no apologies. But you blame me... I'm sure glad that both sides of this issue can be read..... I fought for Christ and you fought against him no change in your hard heartedness.
- I wasn't deceived by Logos.
- I made no apologies because none was called for.
- I didn't "blame" you for anything. I held your arguments accountable for the consequences of their claims.
- I didn't fight against "Christ."
- This entire exchange has morphed into something silly, sophomoric, make that juvenile.
Did you kow what happen to thos people who were hard hearted?
Apparently we get stuck in silly, sophomoric, make that juvenile exchanges such as this one has become.
I thought our exchanges held the promise of thoughtful and respectful dialogue. The personal commentaries that pepper your latest response to me call my thought into serious doubt. If you continue down the path of dismissiveness, my part in our exchanges will end. I respect your theology and faith, but I won't tolerate the dismissive commentaries.
-
Your fight against Jesus Christ is futile. Here's a partial list of the antichrist's oppostion to Christ by removing him from inspired scriture. All Scripture is inspired of God.—2 Tim. 3:16. Therefore removing Christ in contrary to the Holy Spirit.
and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.
So Jesus healed many people who were sick with various diseases, and he cast out many demons. But because the demons knew who he was, he did not allow them to speak.
And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.
And He healed many who were ill with various diseases and drove out many demons. But He would not allow the demons to speak, because they knew who He was.
And He healed many being sick of various diseases, and He cast out many demons. And He would not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him.
And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him.
And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew who He was.
And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was.
And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was.
And Jesus healed many who were suffering with various diseases; and He drove out many demons, but would not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him [recognizing Him as the Son of God].
and he healed many who were sick with various diseases and drove out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
and He healed many who were sick with various diseases and drove out many demons. But He would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew Him.
This Partial list of Bibles that all removed
to be Christat the end of scripture by cutting out to be Christ at the end. Interesting how hard the demonic forces are trying to keep Christ out. Don't buy the lie that they are Christian, they reject Jesus claiming there is no "J" in Hebrew. Get the demonic teaching? No Jehovah. No Jesus. No Jerusalem, No Jews. Hitler thought the same way that was propagated by the Cathloic Church. The Harlot rides the Beast, but not for much longer. 😁
-
@BroRando posted:
Your fight against Jesus Christ is futile. Here's a partial list of the antichrist's oppostion to Christ by removing him from inspired scriture. All Scripture is inspired of God.—2 Tim. 3:16. Therefore removing Christ in contrary to the Holy Spirit.
I have no "fight against Jesus Christ."
Your "partial list of the antichrist's opposition to Christ" takes up several lines of webpage space, but provides nothing more than 13 English language Bibles' translations of a single verse, Mark 1.34. A much lengthier, but also immensely more accurate, presentation of the issue would result were you to quote the way those 13 Bibles translate the other 500 or so NT instances of the word "Christ." Then CD readers could ask, how could Bible translations that exclude the word "Christ" in one verse, but INCLUDE the word "Christ" 500 other times be "antichrist"?
This Partial list of Bibles that all removed
to be Christat the end of scripture by cutting out to be Christ at the end. Interesting how hard the demonic forces are trying to keep Christ out.Those "demonic forces" must not be working very effectively if all they can show for their efforts is the exclusion of the word "Christ" from one single verse.
Don't buy the lie that they are Christian, they reject Jesus claiming there is no "J" in Hebrew. Get the demonic teaching? No Jehovah. No Jesus. No Jerusalem, No Jews. Hitler thought the same way that was propagated by the Cathloic Church. The Harlot rides the Beast, but not for much longer.
Any comparison to Hitler - in ANY field, for ANY purpose - is doomed to failure and should be avoided at all costs.
-
Ha! Bill says that.
-
Just finished listening to audio of Athanasias: The Incarnation of Christ.
I would like to offer a book review, but must say that in the first few chapters alone he absolutely shreds nearly every false doctrine promoted by JW's on these forums. That book was written was almost 1700 years ago! And yet people continue to promulgate ideas from a rotting corpse of theology long ago disproven.
Read or listen to the book. It offers crystal clear arguments proving the divinity of Christ.
-
Fellow Posters,
The most recent exchanges between @Bill_Coley and @BroRando are classic examples of why CD has reached a "new low." I don't mean solely @BroRando's refusal to answer a question succinctly posed to him. Not able to classify him as with any certainty professional, @BroRando mental hygienic may require some review. Since I don't qualify to make such a call, I'll limit my remarks to opinions available by observations:
- @BroRando is well-trained in JWs tactics taught at their Kingdom Halls.
- @BroRando doesn't take CD seriously, for which it stands.
- @BroRando is unwilling or incapable of responding to a concise and relevant question about a position he dogmatically clings to without reason.
- @BroRando is a committee of incompetents masking as one person.
- @BroRando is a child who has gotten a hold of an adult account to CD.
- @BroRando has become one who is determined to destroy what he can't control.
- @BroRando came to CD with a clear objective to proselytize and spread JWs doctrines, which he denies.
I based my selected observations/opinions on the fact that @Bill_Coley and @BroRando share the same belief on the JW's key text (John 1:1 NWT), that Jesus is "a god." @BroRando seems not to be supportive of one who shares his organization's core teachings even in his heretical mind.
What's ironic is @Bill_Coley, @Wolfgang, @BroRando behavior of repetitive posting of an established position are similar with a slight variation. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I wonder how many people left or were turned off for the bombardment of "Jesus is not God" and the rejection of the Bible composite [combine to make the whole] God (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) before @BroRando arrival? @Bill_Coley, @Wolfgang, @BroRando, all share the same bed, @BroRando displays less proficiency than the two more senior posters.
If @BroRando is the best JWs send to invade CD, what quality proclaimers remain. @BroRando is a poor representation of the JWs Organization and sharing its doctrines. With that said, I conclude will @Bill_Coley words; it is "poor stewardship" of one's "time" to address, directly, or respond to @BroRando moronic questions plastered around the forums. Sad! CM
PS. @Bill_Coley , how many of the "22 English language translations" of the Bible in your "Logos library" translated John 1:1 "... and the Word was God" and not "...a god? Who are you, @Bill_Coley, to "dispute" the Deity of Christ"? Don't you accept the "inspired" biblical account beyond lip service?
-
The most recent exchanges between @Bill_Coley and @BroRando are classic examples of why CD has reached a "new low."
No, your - and especially the @Truth hypocrite's bullying and hatred have achieved that!
@Bill_Coley, @Wolfgang, @BroRando, all share the same bed, @BroRando displays less proficiency than the two more senior posters.
See above ... Your straight forward lie provides a prime example! Hypocrisy on a high level!
-
The @BroRando people / groups of the world seldom stick around long. They soon wander off to greener pastures. Weather the storm. Horn and tail will heal. :)
Perhaps a seed sown will grow somewhere.
In fact, I think his presence has been good because it opened doors to what others believe and provided a unique platform to discuss such matters with candidness.
Probably we all get fed up and times and ready to quit. But I see this as quite a cross-section of people—rather unique. Maybe we should all stick around
-
Dear, Dear Mr. @Wolfgang,
Is it necessary for you to slam me going out the door? What did I do for you to class me as such? Is this displaced anger? My posts over the years have shown I tried to help the forums and maintain dignity and order. My "Hypocrisy on a high level" isn't very pleasant to hear from you.
@Wolfgang, what "straightforward lie" you are accusing me that "provides a prime example! Hypocrisy on a high level"? You could have and should have written to me in a PM and not waited until you're going out the door to say something. You have the skills and the intelligence. Why was this opportunity not taken advantage of before today? Let's not be this way.
Yes, we disagree on many things (e.g., sometimes lengthy posts, references, guns, cut/pasting, and mainly the deity of Christ). However, we agree on common grounds (e.g., the Covid-19 vaccine suspicions, abortion, USA mandatory "jabs" for certain workers, Trump's Presidency, etc.). Leave if your may, but it would be nice if we part company in peace. The higher road is always better. Who knows, when you leave, we may meet again. Are you going to run again? Even if you start your forum, I may ask you to join. In short, this "I curse you going out the door" is not necessary. Who knows, we may meet again, if not online, in Germany.
So, let suspend with this less-than the mature manner of departure and be the adult you want to be here and elsewhere online. Again, stay if you are inclined to do so, but let's part in peace. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
PS. @Bill_Coley , how many of the "22 English language translations" of the Bible in your "Logos library" translated John 1:1 "... and the Word was God" and not "...a god? Who are you, @Bill_Coley, to "dispute" the Deity of Christ"? Don't you accept the "inspired" biblical account beyond lip service?
In an October 26 post, I reminded you of my July 24 post in which I declared my decision no longer to respond when, unprompted, you call me out or challenge me to address questions or issues or items you have pasted into one of your posts. I made that decision in response to your long-established history of refusing to respond to - usually, refusing even to acknowledge - my replies to your unprompted calls-out and challenges. Responding to your questions or challenges when you refuse to respond is akin to playing tennis with a player who serves to begin a point, but then makes no attempt to keep the ball in play once I return the serve. Such a sequence of events is to me both unproductive and unsatisfying.
In multiple posts since, I've reminded you of my decision not to respond to your unprompted challenges and calls-out, so I'm confident that you aren't surprised by this latest reminder.
I am more than willing to address any items, questions, or other challenges you wish to present to me, CM, IF you agree to respond directly and without evasion to my responses, including the questions and challenges I pose to you in those responses. You are OF COURSE free not to agree to respond to my responses; it's COMPLETELY your call! But until you do, I won't respond to your calls-out and challenges....
...That said, in this case I'll give you two responses without any expectation of your reply:
how many of the "22 English language translations" of the Bible in your "Logos library" translated John 1:1 "... and the Word was God" and not "...a god?
Of the 22 English language Bibles in my Logos installation, 20 render the end of John 1.1 as "and the Word was God," one renders the end as "the Word was fully God," and one renders it as "and is himself God." None of those 22 Bibles renders the end of John 1.1 to include "...a god."
Who are you, @Bill_Coley, to "dispute" the Deity of Christ"?
I am... me, a follower of Jesus who over multiple decades has intentionally and extensively studied Scripture's message regarding Jesus' identity and relationship to God, and as a result of that study has concluded Jesus was not God and did not consider himself to be God. My study has revealed challenges to my conclusion - the pre-existence material, for example - but ultimately, the question of Jesus' divinity is a binary choice: either he was or wasn't God. On the basis of my study, I have decided that he wasn't. I both respect and celebrate the faith undergirding the conclusions to the contrary of mine that you and other followers of Jesus make on the issue.
I DO NOT expect you to answer this, but given the question you posed to me, perhaps YOU should consider this question: Who are YOU to conclude, as you did, that @BroRando "is a committee of incompetents masking as one person," or "a child who has gotten a hold of an adult account to CD," or that his "mental hygienic may require some review"?
-
I don't think @C Mc is as intellectual as he wants the CD forum to think he is. The 'Deity of Christ' has nothing to do with the trinity. The trinity doctrine has no names in it, escpecially Jesus Christ. So when a trintarian refuses to post the trinity doctrine it's because the doctrine rejects that Jesus was Sent by the Father is the theon alone. Therefore the doctrine is expossed by (1 John 2:22)
divine (adj.)
late 14c., "pertaining to, of the nature of, or proceeding from God or a god; addressed to God," from Old French divin, devin (12c.), from Latin divinus "of a god," from divus "of or belonging to a god, inspired, prophetic," related to deus "god, deity" (from PIE root *dyeu- "to shine," in derivatives "sky, heaven, god").
Weakened sense of "excellent in the highest degree, heavenly" had evolved by late 15c. The phrase divine right, indicating one conferred by or based on ordinance of God, is from c. 1600. https://www.etymonline.com/word/divine
The second instance of God is in the feminine sense. The first instance of God is theon or in the accusative ho theos. Therefore, trying to jam the trinity into scripture claiming Jesus is the theon is inaccurate and misleading and takes away from the 'divinty of christ'.
The Word of God proceeded from God for he is a god that belongs to God. Not only is Jesus Christ inspired but is aslo called the Great Prophet. Even though being a prophet and was raised up, he had limitations not knowing the hour or Day that belonged to Jehovah (the theon) alone.
Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10: 34-36)
"Christ, in turn, belongs to God." (1 Corithians 3:23)
"This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God." (1 John 4:2)
Now fear seized them all, and they began to glorify God, saying: “A great prophet has been raised up among us,” and, “God has turned his attention to his people.” (Luke 7:16)
"Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him." (Deuteronomy 18:15)
““Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36)
JESUS CHRIST
The name and title of the Son of God from the time of his anointing while on earth.
The name Jesus (Gr., I·e·sousʹ) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (Mr 10:47; Ac 2:22) Christ is from the Greek Khri·stosʹ, the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shiʹach (Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Whereas the expression “anointed one” was properly applied to others before Jesus, such as Moses, Aaron, and David (Heb 11:24-26; Le 4:3; 8:12; 2Sa 22:51), the position, office, or service to which these were anointed only prefigured the superior position, office, and service of Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16; see CHRIST; MESSIAH.
-
Solid answers for genuine questions JW’s have been taught to think will stump Christians.
-
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THEIR NEW TESTAMENT
McCOY, ROBERT M. “JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THEIR NEW TESTAMENT.” Andover Newton Quarterly 1963, Vol. 3, pp: 15–31. ISSN: 0003–2972
(Jan.)-An account of a visit to the headquarters of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and a brief survey of their history is followed by an analysis of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. The text underlying it, its method and style, its vocabulary, and its “theological translations” are examined.
William Sailer et al., Religious and Theological Abstracts (Myerstown, PA: Religious and Theological Abstracts, 2012).
-
@BroRando quote from the JWs Website (word-for-word):
JESUS CHRIST
The name and title of the Son of God from the time of his anointing while on earth.
The name Jesus (Gr., I·e·sousʹ) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason [,] persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (Mr 10:47; Ac 2:22) Christ is from the Greek Khri·stosʹ, the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shiʹach (Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Whereas the expression “anointed one” was properly applied to others before Jesus, such as Moses, Aaron, and David (Heb 11:24-26; Le 4:3; 8:12; 2Sa 22:51), the position, office, or service to which these were anointed only prefigured the superior position, office, and service of Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16; see CHRIST; MESSIAH.
This is nothing new or impressive. The above is from page 52: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451?q=JESUS+CHRIST&p=doc
As an auto generated machine of information, you're working as designed. I would like to speak to a person behind this name tag @BroRando. You can reveal your true identity to Chairman Jan. It is than I will take this tag serious. To the operators, please respond to my request. Thanks. CM
-
Is this a bot of some kind? I don't know much about bots.
-
An older volume but informative:
DWAALLICHTEN (Deceptive Light)
VAN HALSEMA, J. H. “DWAALLICHTEN (Deceptive Light).” Horizons 1957, Vol. 20, pp: 194–198. ISSN: 0360–9669
The church is challenged by the Bible knowledge of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect. Jehovah’s Witnesses are deceptive, turning men away from Christ through pride of Bible knowledge, and by propagandizing. They are in error concerning the nature of God’s kingdom, are disobedient to the God of the Bible, and only pretend to lead men to God. This group is provincial, self-centered and unaware of the task of the church in the fight against mass atheism.
William Sailer et al., Religious and Theological Abstracts (Myerstown, PA: Religious and Theological Abstracts, 2012).
-
the Father is the theon alone.
Interesting statement, by the above are you asserting that there is a θεόν, and a θεὸς? Same lexeme just different case – accusative vs nominative.
Let's put your "Father is the theon" theory, as I understand it, to a simple test:
First, is there anyplace in the NWT that translates θεόν as "Father"? For instance, how about Matt. 4:7 to start – does the NWT read "...*the Lord your God to the test.’”, or ...*the Lord your Father to the test *(Jehovah)? Or just a small sampling found within the NT (Matt. 4:10; 5:8; 9:8; 15:31; 22:37, etc.).
Secondly, when "Father" is used of God the lexeme is πατήρ (cf. Matt. 5:16).
I believe, to put it quite mildly, there is a lack of grammatical and lexical support for the equivalency of "Father" and θεόν, or θεόν "alone" as you seem to think exists.
The second instance of God is in the feminine sense. The first instance of God is theon or in the accusative ho theos. Therefore, trying to jam the trinity into scripture claiming Jesus is the theon is inaccurate and misleading and takes away from the 'divinty of christ'.
"...the 'divinty of christ'. Translated as, and meaning, a god in the NWT – a created lesser second god.
In Jn. 1:1 there are two instances of the lexeme θεὸς used. The first use, τὸν θεόν, is in the second clause and is "accusative" as you remarked. The second use, θεὸς, in the third clause is nominative and anarthrous. In each case both of these words are masculine.
"The second instance of God is in the feminine sense." No, θεὸς is not in the feminine sense here. There is one usage only in the NT of the lexeme θεὸς where it is feminine, and that is in Acts 19:37 where you have the accusative θεόν with a feminine article – τὴν θεὸν.
I've read your posts elsewhere where you've creatively attempted to tie the feminine gender of "In the beginning..." of the first clause of Jn. 1:1 to the anarthrous θεὸς use in the third clause – a long shot and purely speculative in my opinion.
-
I appreciate you looking into it. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16; see CHRIST; MESSIAH.
The first scripture of John gives witness to the Word's beginning. "In the Beginning was the Word" (Arche') Yes, Jesus is lesser than Jehovah who is his God and Father. "My Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28) The Greek word here rendered “greater” (meiʹzon) is the comparative form of the word for “great” (meʹgas), and it is used in many contexts where one person or thing is said to be superior to another.—Mt 18:1; 23:17; Mr 9:34; 12:31; Lu 22:24; Joh 13:16; 1Co 13:13.
Strong's Concordance
arché: beginning, origin
Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: arché
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
Definition: beginning, origin
Usage: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.
Now, if the Word was in the Beginning, then we can certainly apply the meaning HELPS Word studies to Jesus Christ who is pre-eminent.
- HELPS Word-studies
- 746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
Other scriptures that support this is "Firstborn of All Creation' some translations use "Firstborn of All Creatures" in (Colossians 1:15) Also we have"the Beginning of Creation" (Rev 3:14)
Many Biblical Scholars proclaim that theos can never be used in the feminine sense. So is this the truth or trintarian bias?
Strong's Concordance
theos: God, a god
Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)
Definition: God, a god
Usage: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.
If one studies the Greek, then we notice two different greek words were used this verse. First instance ton theon or ho theos which means the God. Also, the Greek word pros can be translated towards. In conclusion of John's very first sentence, he did not use ton theon or ho theos but the rather the feminine noun theos.
So the witness John gives is accurate and true, and thoroughly relates to Jesus' own Words, "The Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)
- "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God." (1 Corithians 11:3)
- "Christ, in turn, belongs to God." (1 Corithians 3:23)
-
Resource referenced by Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Freedom_Outreach
Personal Freedom Outreach
PFO consists of seven directors. It has a board of reference, which includes Jay E. Adams, Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes.
The organization educates and assist people regarding the dangers and heretical doctrines of religious cults such as false Witnesses.
PFO publishes the Quarterly Journal
-
Resource for finding PFO Quarterly Journal articles on JW's dangers, deceit, and heresy.
You can search indices of these articles here:
-
@Truth REJECTS Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16; see CHRIST; MESSIAH.
Triniatrians worship a three person god that is NOWHERE in the Bible... and DENY the Blood of Christ. You won't find Jesus Christ in any trinity. Trinitarians know this and refuse to post their trinity faith that remains in the darkness. They loved the darkness more than the light because the light exposes their demonic teachings.
However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7)
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
