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

[Capbook]

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

The verse is saying Almight God made Jesus God (meanjng the One who created Jesus /The word ) gave the latter power over everything that was ever created.

So Jesus is God, and not a created God. How could He be a God to everything was ever created if He is also a creation.

[Capbook]

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,(NKJV)
John 10:17-18
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.(KJV)

Yes Jesus died; God [Almighty God] cannot die (see 1 Timothy 6:16 ). So Jesus cannot be Almighty God.

We believe Jesus in dual nature, His flesh dies (human nature), take back His life (Divine nature)
As Barnes understand Jesus as Father's equal, Jesus is also Almighty.

Hebrews 1:3
It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh.
(from Barnes' Notes)

What Barnes thinks is in conflict with Christ and the Bible. I'd recommend reading the Bible for yourself and not letting Barnes determine what you believe.

What does Jesus think? "The Father is greater than I." John 14:28

What does the Bible say? After Jesus death what is Jesus final position? Co-Ruler with his Father? Nope. "But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." 1 Corinthians 15:28. This scripture clearly separates the two as one having complete rulership and the other being in subjection to the other. Not equal.

Your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 differ from JFB exegesis, they understand Jesus is co-equal with the Father.

I gave no interpretation. I read the Bible as it says. There is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 15:28 to mean something else that what it plainly says.
JFB has no authority over my understanding of the Bible. Thus I do not care how JFB understands anything. JFB is the lord over your faith, not mine.

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

[JehovahsWitness]

So Jesus is God, and not a created God.

Jesus is God over everything created. Jesus was himself created (by Almighty God, YHWH the Father)

How could He be a God to everything was ever created if He is also a creation.

Because his Father the ALMIGHTY God gave him that position.

[2timothy316]

Yes Jesus died; God [Almighty God] cannot die (see 1 Timothy 6:16 ). So Jesus cannot be Almighty God.

We believe Jesus in dual nature, His flesh dies (human nature), take back His life (Divine nature)
As Barnes understand Jesus as Father's equal, Jesus is also Almighty.

Hebrews 1:3
It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh.
(from Barnes' Notes)

What Barnes thinks is in conflict with Christ and the Bible. I'd recommend reading the Bible for yourself and not letting Barnes determine what you believe.

What does Jesus think? "The Father is greater than I." John 14:28

What does the Bible say? After Jesus death what is Jesus final position? Co-Ruler with his Father? Nope. "But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." 1 Corinthians 15:28. This scripture clearly separates the two as one having complete rulership and the other being in subjection to the other. Not equal.

Your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 differ from JFB exegesis, they understand Jesus is co-equal with the Father.

I gave no interpretation. I read the Bible as it says. There is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 15:28 to mean something else that what it plainly says.
JFB has no authority over my understanding of the Bible. Thus I do not care how JFB understands anything. JFB is the lord over your faith, not mine.

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

[onewithhim]

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

The verse is saying Almight God made Jesus God (meanjng the One who created Jesus /The word ) gave the latter power over everything that was ever created.

So Jesus is God, and not a created God. How could He be a God to everything was ever created if He is also a creation.

Have you noticed that I addressed that verse a few times before? The NIV that says what you posted also has a footnote saying that it could also mean "Christ who is over all," leaving out the "God" part. I posted many versions that do not render that verse as saying that Christ is God over all. You are hanging your belief on a tenuous rendering of the one verse in Romans.

[Capbook]

So Jesus is God, and not a created God.

Jesus is God over everything created. Jesus was himself created (by Almighty God, YHWH the Father)

How could He be a God to everything was ever created if He is also a creation.

Because his Father the ALMIGHTY God gave him that position.

If Jesus is a creation why all angels commanded by the Father to worship Him (Jesus). Same worship the Father seeks, in John 4:23.

[Capbook]

We believe Jesus in dual nature, His flesh dies (human nature), take back His life (Divine nature)
As Barnes understand Jesus as Father's equal, Jesus is also Almighty.

Hebrews 1:3
It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh.
(from Barnes' Notes)

What Barnes thinks is in conflict with Christ and the Bible. I'd recommend reading the Bible for yourself and not letting Barnes determine what you believe.

What does Jesus think? "The Father is greater than I." John 14:28

What does the Bible say? After Jesus death what is Jesus final position? Co-Ruler with his Father? Nope. "But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." 1 Corinthians 15:28. This scripture clearly separates the two as one having complete rulership and the other being in subjection to the other. Not equal.

Your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 differ from JFB exegesis, they understand Jesus is co-equal with the Father.

I gave no interpretation. I read the Bible as it says. There is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 15:28 to mean something else that what it plainly says.
JFB has no authority over my understanding of the Bible. Thus I do not care how JFB understands anything. JFB is the lord over your faith, not mine.

How you understand it, that is your interpretation.

No it isn't. It is called reading comprehension. As you read my words now there is no need to try to interpret them to find some hidden or different meaning. 1 Cor 15:28 contains no hidden meaning. Just read it as you see it. Of course this will be impossible for someone that feels they must change everything they read so that it fits their dogma. If one reads something in the Bible then says to themselves, 'that can't be right because it doesn't fit what I believe' then I'd recommend tossing the Bible out the window, as it does them no good.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means. I gave no explanation or opinion of what 1 Cor 15:28 means. So when the Bible says "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One", that is a quote. This is not my explanation or opinion of the text. What you read from the Bible is what you get from the Bible. If you change what it says then that is YOUR interpretation, you're assigning it an explanation and you're giving your opinion. I am not.

To interpret means to understand the words you are reading, understanding the context of the passage you are reading and then comparing it's meaning to the rest of the theme of the passage or the complete book.
The first question of this thread is,"Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was “a god.” Lower case g.
So, may I test your reading comprehension with this verse;
Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

Why change the verse in question? Are you done talking about 1 Cor 15:28? Have you accepted that I am using simple reading comprehension and I am not using an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28?

Do you know what it means to start arguing about something else that is not being debated? It's called a strawman. It comes from the idea that rather addressing head on the point in question, a defender brings up a totally different subject, a strawman to hit, rather than the actual target. One hits the strawman rather than the real target because they want to hit something they they think they can win against. Rather than discussing my reading comprehension vs your accusation of my interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, you've change the scripture. Thus changing the target scripture as you think you can win the argument by introducing different scripture but can't win versus 1 Cor 15:28.

So can we stick with reading comprehension vs interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28? Or do you accept that I didn't interpret 1 Cor 15:28? Introducing a whole scripture is to invite your defeat on 1 Cor 15:28 and open a whole new debate on a new scripture.

Again, you're saying reading comprehension and interpretation have the same meaning but they do not mean the same thing.

The thread is titled "Re: Questions about Jesus and JW’s" and not 1 Cor 15:28. So Romans 9:5 is in the scope of the thread (about Jesus) I believe. Not a strawman.
Maybe I could request your understanding about it.

Peace.

So you're done with 1 Cor 15:28?

We could go back to 1 Cor 15:28, if you grant my request.

[Capbook]

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.(NIV)

The verse is saying Almight God made Jesus God (meanjng the One who created Jesus /The word ) gave the latter power over everything that was ever created.

So Jesus is God, and not a created God. How could He be a God to everything was ever created if He is also a creation.

Have you noticed that I addressed that verse a few times before? The NIV that says what you posted also has a footnote saying that it could also mean "Christ who is over all," leaving out the "God" part. I posted many versions that do not render that verse as saying that Christ is God over all. You are hanging your belief on a tenuous rendering of the one verse in Romans.

Yes, there are translation of Romans 9:5 that could led to different interpretation, just like 1 John 5:20. But there are clearer translations that lead us to understand them more fully.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, there are translation of Romans 9:5 that could led to different interpretation...

Je that is the case who are you implying your reading is the only one scripturally acceptable?

[Capbook]

Yes, there are translation of Romans 9:5 that could led to different interpretation...

Je that is the case who are you implying your reading is the only one scripturally acceptable?

It is more acceptable if we let the Bible interpret itself.
And also let lexicons, translations and commentaries assist for further study.