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

[JehovahsWitness]

DID JESUS INVITE HIS FOLLOWERS TO PRAY DIRECTLY TO HIM IN JOHN 14:14 ?

JOHN 14:14 New American Standard Bible

"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it."

While "ask me" is found in p66 (the earliest extant Greek text) and similar early codices*, it is absent from a variety of other early textual witnesses. Indeed, The Expositor's Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) omits the "me" from its text. Robert Bowman, while himself favoring its inclusion, due to the words appearance in early manuscripts, does admit " that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word..." {end quote} - Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991, pp. 67-68.

* The "me" is in the Alexandrian text, the Sahidic Coptic text (2nd/3rd century) which is in the Alexandrian text family, as well as other ancient witnesses,the Sahidic Coptic text reads: If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do." Thus a variety of translations have also chosen to omit the "me" from the text of John 14:14 due to its dubious origins.

King James Bible
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Jubilee Bible 2000
If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

King James 2000 Bible
If you shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

American King James Version
If you shallask any thing in my name, I will do it.

American Standard Version
If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do.

Darby Bible Translation
If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Webster's Bible Translation
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

World English Bible
If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Young's Literal Translation
if ye ask anything in my name I will do it.

continued below ...

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION: Why does the "me" of John 14:14 appear in the Jehovah's Witness WBTS Greek Interlinear but not in their bible translation?

In 1969 Jehovah's Witnesses, published a Greek-English word for word interlinear. based on the text of Westcott & Hort's Greek New Testament. This was a critical Greek text based primarily on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (where the "me" does appear).
http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/john/14.html

Along side the publication has the rendition of the New World Translation which, although it does extensively reference W&H is NOT based exclusively on their text but references a number of other Greek manuscrips as well. The New World Translation Committee, for reasons stated above decided, contrary to the Wescott & Hort, not to include the "ask me" in its main text of John 14:14*.

*NOTE: The Jehovah's Witness 1984 NWT Reference [Study] Bible does references the alternative reading in its footnote


Further reading (Search For Bible Truths SFBT)
http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.fr ... ation.html

*

WHY I WILL DO IT ?


Why though does Jesus say HE will do what asked if the request is not being made directly to him? Because Jesus, by his own admission, has been given all authority by his Father. Therefore he (Jesus ) is the one that will be used by God to respond to all legitimate requests . Notice how Jesus himself outlines the "chain of command" ...

"If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. If you love me, you will observe my commandments. And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever." (John 14:14-16)

So it is clear that even in heaven, Jesus authority remains subordinate to the Father.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #361]

I did some research on Granville Sharp’s rule. Here is my understanding. Let me know if you agree.

Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person.

We see this in 2 Peter 1:1. “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

We see the same in Titus 2:13. “of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,”

Both nouns in both verses are being applied to Jesus.

There are no exceptions to this rule.

2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18.

“For so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” ( 2 Peter 1:11)

“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,…” (2 Peter 2:20)

“that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of [a]us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,…” (2 Peter 3:2)

“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 3:20)

No one would question these verses. Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #371]

The inclusion of the term “me” in John 14:14 is based upon its being present in a large portion of the extant manuscripts, including the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John.

Whether “me” should be there or not makes no difference. Jesus said, “I WILL DO IT”. He did not say the Father would do it. That’s the point! Jesus would do whatever believers asked in his name, and he would do when he returned to heaven at his ascension. This shows us Jesus is omnipotent. It also shows he is everywhere and knows everything. He has the exact essence/nature as the Father. He is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. He could not hear, let alone answer the prayers of all believers at the same time if he didn’t have the exact nature of the Father. He could not claim to dwell in all believers.

In John 17:5, Jesus tells us, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” When Jesus came to earth, he emptied himself of the fullness of the godhead (deity) (Col 2:9). Yes, in his human nature, he needed the authority given to him by his Father, but in his God nature, he did not. When Jesus was on earth, he was truly God and truly man.

Jesus was with the Father and had the glory with the father before creation. There are no verses that tell us of a previous time. We know that “All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. The word “other” is not found in Col. 1:15-17. The New World translators added it four times because they were worried that their followers would think Jesus wasn’t created. Everything was created through Jesus. He did not create himself.

[Difflugia]

I did some research on Granville Sharp’s rule. Here is my understanding. Let me know if you agree.

Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person.

That's exactly right.

The problem with calling it a "rule" is that breaking it doesn't result in something that's grammatically incorrect, but creates a statement that could mean multiple things. Careful writers will avoid making ambiguous statements, so what the "rule" is actually saying is that if the statement isn't clear, we should give the writer the benefit of the doubt, especially if the writer is careful otherwise. Perhaps the author of 2 Peter meant "our God" and "our saviour" to refer to two different entities, but if so, the author was careless.

[Eloi]

Some examples of passages were the word "other" is included in the sense of the Greek text are mentioned in this comment:

(...)
You see, Greek has a word for other and Paul clearly knew it because he used it a lot. He didn't use it in Colossians 1:16, though. He might have meant it, sure. It's possible. There's no reason for NWT translators to insert it, though, for any reasons other than conforming the text to their own theology with which the text conflicts, both in Greek and in English generated within reasonable translation guidelines.

Not because I question the possible knowledge you claim to have about Paul's biblical language or the presumed note you think Paul must have had include in this passage (actually the note is in another text), but... in the Bible (including Paul's letters) the Greek words πασ/παντα do not have as strict a meaning as some think (I think I talked about this in another post). Think, for example, how other biblical versions translate that Greek word in these texts: Luke 13:2; 21:29; Phil. 2:21. Also, tell me if the sense of that Greek word is absolute in 1 Cor. 6:18 or 15:24.

In fact, in Rom. 5:12 it is said that through Adam death spread to all men and obviously Adam, who was also a man, did not receive death by extension, so that "everyone/all" does not include him even though he is a man. Isn't that the same in the case of Jesus in Col. 1:16?

Sometimes Biblical writers assume that certain things will be understood without needing to be clarified, because they are self-evident; For example, read 1 Cor. 15:27, which contains an extraordinary clarification regarding the word "all".

If first-century Christians knew that Jesus had an origin, obviously that fact need not be explained away as an exception. The Bible itself says so explicitly in Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15,18, but Jesus himself also publicly confessed it in John 6:57.

For these reasons it is EVIDENT that the Greek word means "all other" in Col. 1:16.

It is not honest not to use accepted translation criteria when it is inconvenient.

[Eloi]

Granville Sharp's rule has gone for a lot of revisions, since when was formulated it contained many errors that were verified over time. It has many exceptions to be a grammatical rule: it does not apply with plurals or even with singulars that have a plural sense like collective nouns, it does not apply to proper names or to titles that function as proper names, and some other exceptions.

In Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 the rule does not apply for the simple reason that both texts deal with proper names and determinative titles that function as names.

Neither Peter nor Paul considered Jesus to be their God, and trying to find anything to prove otherwise is futile. Paul's writings show that he never considered Jesus equal to Jehovah, the God of the Jews, and Peter's speeches in Acts show the same thing about him.

Acts 3:12 When Peter saw this, he said to the people: “Men of Israel, why are you so amazed at this, and why are you staring at us as though by personal power or godly devotion we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom you handed over and disowned before Pilate, even though he had decided to release him. 14 Yes, you disowned that holy and righteous one, and you asked for a man who was a murderer to be given to you, 15 whereas you killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. 16 And through his name, and by our faith in his name, this man whom you see and know has been made strong. The faith that is through him has made this man completely healthy in front of all of you. 17 And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did. 18 But in this way God has fulfilled the things he announced beforehand through the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #346

The Scriptures I posted stand. For those who care to study them individually, in context, and consider the original languages of each (there are no commas in the Greek), I leave them to their own conclusions.

My goal is to share proofs that Jesus is Yahweh. We will each stand before the judgement seat of Christ and give an account. You for you. Me for me. I’ve shared God’s word. You’re free to accept the many Scriptures I’ve posted for what they say, or you can reject them. It’s your choice.

PS. You cannot use Scriptures to disprove Scriptures. You posted verses from Php., Col., and Eph. , but you did not prove the verses I posted to be wrong.

Be blessed,

MissKate

You did not say anything about the clear evidence that I posted from Eph., Php., and Col. that shows that YHWH and Christ are separate individuals. I can look at your references and I see that the TWO are mentioned, in spite of the errant non-inclusion of commas where they should be to make the meaning clear in English. (I thought that you would see the way the scriptures should be understood, after observing the greetings from Paul to the various congregations. How can you ignore them?)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #361]

I did some research on Granville Sharp’s rule. Here is my understanding. Let me know if you agree.

Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person.

We see this in 2 Peter 1:1. “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

We see the same in Titus 2:13. “of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,”

Both nouns in both verses are being applied to Jesus.

There are no exceptions to this rule.

2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18.

“For so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” ( 2 Peter 1:11)

“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,…” (2 Peter 2:20)

“that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of [a]us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,…” (2 Peter 3:2)

“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 3:20)

No one would question these verses. Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word.

2Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 are NOT to be applied to Jesus. There are two Beings spoken of. God AND the Lord Jesus. It is firmly ensconced in Scripture. You can see it throughout the Bible. Jesus is always referring to YHWH as his Father, and his Father has done various things for him which he could not do himself. In Isaiah 61:1,2 he says that YHWH anointed him and SENT him. Die he anoint himself and send himself? At his Baptism did he speak from heaven to himself? Did he pray to himself? When he died, wasn't he really dead? If he wasn't, that's the only way he could raise himself up. Then our sins are still with us. Jesus did die and was really dead. YHWH brought him back to life.....YHWH never died.

Someone misquoted Peter. The mis-quoter says that the verse says "The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." That is not what it really says. It says "God" and Saviour Jesus Christ. How subtle a twisting of the scripture!

2Peter 2:20 is a whole 'nother ball game. Peter does mention only Christ, and the same at 2Peter 3:2 and 3:20. He is not mentioning "God" and our Saviour Christ. You lump together verses speaking of BOTH individuals, YHWH and Jesus, and just one--Jesus our Lord. They are not speaking of the same thing. More subtle twisting.

[JehovahsWitness]

sorry duplicate