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

[onewithhim]

QUESTION: HIT SHOULD PHILIPPIANS 2:5, 6 BE PROPERLY TRANSLATED?

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

Was Paul saying here that Jesus considered equality with God to be something he should rightfully "grasp" (ie to take and cling to) OR was Paul's meaning that that Jesus knew he had no right to try and obtain it?

The phrase in verse 6, [ouch harpagmon hegesato: not - seize - (he) considered] is, it has to be admitted on the surface somewhat ambiguous. The Greek word translated "grasp" by the ESV is harpagmon ; about this word The Expositora's Greek Testament makes the following comment:

We cannot find any passage where [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives [including harpagmon] has the sense of holding in possession, retaining. It seems invariably to mean "seize/ snatch violently." (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (George Abbot Smith), states "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing [...] - A-S 60

Interestingly 1969, a new French lectionary that was approved by the Holy See rendered Phil 2:6: Christ Jesus is God's image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God

NOTE: If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it. stated The Catholic monthly magazine Itineraires, supplement January 1971. If Christ did not already possess equality with God he cannot *BE* God.


AN IDIOMATIC EXPRESSION

Certain propose that this was an idiomatic expression for something you can use to your advantage, whether that means something you've taken from someone else to use to your advantage, or something you already possess (even your own innate qualities) that you might wield to your own advantage. So, even if this is such an idiomatic expression , it can STILL be read to mean Jesus refrained from usurping a position he did not inately posses.


CONCLUSION Philippians is quite an ambiguous passage which has evidently been a challenge to translate. It can evidently be read to refer to the "illegal" taking of something one does not innately posses OR the abuse of something one does. Ultimately it is the wider context of the Greek Scripture which arguably favors the former reading over the latter.






JW


Further reading : https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... -26-7.html


RELATED POSTS

How should Harpagmos rightly be translated? [tigger]
viewtopic.php?p=1041994#p1041994

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

Please regard the following instead of the JWs dogma: https://dailyverse.knowing-jesus.com/philippians-2-6

Instead of denigrating JWs, why don't you comment on the reasoning that JehovahsWitness provided in the last post? If all you can do is put down JWs, then you must not have anything substantial to say. You must not understand what you are trying to talk about, or you wouldn't just refer us to a link and slamming JWs' beliefs.

[onewithhim]

... ‘Jehovah is his name and this is proved by, ‘this is his name… [quoting Jer 23:6]

JEREMIAH 23:5, 6

“Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will raise up to David a righteous sprout. And a king will reign+ and show insight and uphold justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will reside in security. And this is the name by which he will be called: Jehovah Is Our Righteousness.”

Do Jesus theophoric names make him equal to Almighty God?
viewtopic.php?p=1112508#p1112508

When Paul said, “At the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Philippians 2:10, CSB), the emphasis was on every creature in the universe acknowledging JESUS as LORD over all creation. When he stated, “Every tongue will confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD” (verse 11), he meant that every living thing, both in heaven and on earth, will honor CHRIST. Heavenly forces and demonic powers, people who reject CHRIST and HIS faithful in the church, all will bow before HIM (Isaiah 45:23–24). Every tongue will acknowledge JESUS for who HE is—the SOVEREIGN LORD of the universe.

The JWs do everything in their doctrine to throw JESUS CHRIST under the bus as an inferior being GOD created to manipulate, and ultimately this is offensive to GOD the FATHER.

The trinity doctrine puts Jesus in a position that even Jesus didn't consider himself equal to.

"Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God." Philippians 2:5, 6

There is no throwing anyone under the bus when that person themselves don't consider themselves equal to God. So this reply is an attempt to accuse a people of something where there is no wrong doing according to scripture. According the man made trinity doctrine it's very damaging and I'm fine with that as I aim to please Jehovah and not man's created doctrines.

The following is a New World corruption of what the Bible says
"Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God." Philippians 2:5, 6

The King James reads as follows Philippians 2:5-6
King James Version
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

JESUS who is of a godly form didn't regard it usurping to be GOD's equal. It the same with A god vs. GOD, when in fact the Bible implies and clearly states that there is ONLY ONE god. There are no other TRUE gods. So CHRIST is either ONE with the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT as GOD or CHRIST is not GOD. But HE cannot be both. And a god cannot save anyone. So, it's JW's doctrine that is inferior and not the Lord JESUS CHRIST ---- EMMANUEL (GOD with us).

Most translations put it this way, "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."

If Jesus was equal to God there would be no reason for Paul to write that sentence.

The Bible is superior to the man-made trinity doctrine. Jesus is NEVER referred to as the True God in the Bible.

Do you believe JESUS was equal with GOD? If not, that is why Paul wrote what he wrote and it's the HOLY SPIRIT that gives to the saved the proper understanding. JESUS didn't empty HIMSELF and come to earth as a servant to gain anything for HIMSELF. HIS power was already assured and the love HE shared with the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT is eternal and without malice towards the other two persons of the TRINITY. In the name of the FATHER the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT, forever AMEN.

How can Jesus ever need to gain anything? If he is God wouldn't he already have everything? How can anyone be assured power that is supposed to be equal to the other parts already? The trinity doctrine has more holes in it than a sponge.

I think that you are confused. CHRIST came to save that which was lost. The doctrine of the TRINITY has far less holes than the views and opinions of the JWs.

Timothy didn't refute that idea. We know that Christ came to save that which was lost. Can you come up with something more grounded instead of your fly-by-night opinions?

[JehovahsWitness]

I Corinthians 8:6 actually says ---- "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

... And there IS one GOD (one FATHER, one Lord JESUS CHRIST, and one HOLY SPIRIT). Three beings in one essence we call GOD.

But the scripture doesn't call both the Father and Jesus GOD ( neither does it make any reference to the holy spirit). Only two beings are mentioned and only one is here given the title GOD. Paul makes a clear distinction between the two individuals by dividing their identities (attributing different titles and powers to each)

• The Father (called here GOD) the SOURCE ("from") whom all things came

• Jesus (called here LORD) the intermediate ("through") whom all things came.

To illustrate: Who do you think has more authority , the source / the writer of a letter (the originator) or the postman "through" whom the letter came to you?

There is no way to reasonably come to a trinitarian view based on the above passage.



JW

[LittleNipper]

I Corinthians 8:6 actually says ---- "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

... And there IS one GOD (one FATHER, one Lord JESUS CHRIST, and one HOLY SPIRIT). Three beings in one essence we call GOD.

But the scripture doesn't call both the Father and Jesus GOD ( neither does it make any reference to the holy spirit). Only two beings are mentioned and only one is here given the title GOD. Paul makes a clear distinction between the two individuals by dividing their identities (attributing different titles and powers to each)

• The Father (called here GOD) the SOURCE ("from") whom all things came

• Jesus (called here LORD) the intermediate ("through") whom all things came.

To illustrate: Who do you think has more authority , the source / the writer of a letter (the originator) or the postman "through" whom the letter came to you?

There is no way to reasonably come to a trinitarian view based on the above passage.



JW

John 1
New International Version
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Please note the following when comparing the NEW WORLDTRANSLATION of the Bible to any other translation: The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION committee of translation, had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of the men involved had any university education except Fredrick W. Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree.

[2timothy316]

I think that you are confused. CHRIST came to save that which was lost. The doctrine of the TRINITY has far less holes than the views and opinions of the JWs.

Ad Hominem fallacy. This is when a person can't win the debate or refute a claim so they attack the person and/or group to discredit them so they don't seem right. Its a poor defense.

[JehovahsWitness]

John 1
New International Version
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Please note the following when comparing the NEW WORLDTRANSLATION of the Bible to any other translation: The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION committee of translation, had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of the men involved had any university education except Fredrick W. Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree.

Regardless of who translated the text , The New World Translation 's rendition of John 1:1 is grammatically sound.

Feel free to attempt to prove otherwise.



JW


RELATED POST


How should John 1:1 properly be translated? [...and the word was God]
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

[onewithhim]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #574]

What Bible translation are you using? No versions that I have seen say that "Jesus was himself God" at John 1:18. Look at an Interlinear Bible and you will see that the verse doesn't say that. And then you can look at the thread titled "70 versions of John 1:1 that show that it says "a god." Of course the Word came down here and lived among us, but he didn't have to be God to do that.

[onewithhim]

John 1
New International Version
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Please note the following when comparing the NEW WORLDTRANSLATION of the Bible to any other translation: The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION committee of translation, had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of the men involved had any university education except Fredrick W. Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree.

Regardless of who translated the text , The New World Translation 's rendition of John 1:1 is grammatically sound.

Feel free to attempt to prove otherwise.



JW


RELATED POST


How should John 1:1 properly be translated? [...and the word was God]
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

And also, we can prove our point in other Bibles beside the NWT. It does no good for anyone to denigrate that version because it's lauded by Bible scholars who have no ax to grind, and its not the only version we refer to. We have proven that Jesus is not God from the King James Version, and we used it for 100 years before the NWT was available.

[LittleNipper]

John 1
New International Version
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Please note the following when comparing the NEW WORLDTRANSLATION of the Bible to any other translation: The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION committee of translation, had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of the men involved had any university education except Fredrick W. Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree.

Regardless of who translated the text , The New World Translation 's rendition of John 1:1 is grammatically sound.

Feel free to attempt to prove otherwise.



JW


RELATED POST


How should John 1:1 properly be translated? [...and the word was God]
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

And also, we can prove our point in other Bibles beside the NWT. It does no good for anyone to denigrate that version because it's lauded by Bible scholars who have no ax to grind, and its not the only version we refer to. We have proven that Jesus is not God from the King James Version, and we used it for 100 years before the NWT was available.

If you believe so. And since there is only one GOD, and JESUS is a GOD. Then JESUS CHRIST must be IT! Not all Bible scholars are Christian, and there are those that believe JESUS was born to a "YOUNG WOMAN." Some scholars who have argued that the Hebrew word almah, which is translated as “virgin” in the English Standard Version of the Bible, ought really to be translated as “young woman” instead.

I'm sure that such would agree with any Bible translation that tries to undermine the deity of CHRIST.

Bible proof that JESUS CHRIST is GOD in the FLESH:

Here is yet another perspective regarding the deity of CHRIST: https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesu ... us-is-god/

[JumpingJackFlash]

John 1
New International Version
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Please note the following when comparing the NEW WORLDTRANSLATION of the Bible to any other translation: The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION committee of translation, had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of the men involved had any university education except Fredrick W. Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree.

Regardless of who translated the text , The New World Translation 's rendition of John 1:1 is grammatically sound.

Feel free to attempt to prove otherwise.



JW


RELATED POST


How should John 1:1 properly be translated? [...and the word was God]
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

In the beginning was the Word(Jesus, the name of the Word), and the Word(Jesus, the name of the Word) was with God, and the Word(Jesus, the name of the Word) was God.

True or false?