Here is some info on Jehovah's Witnesses that I have gathered. IReply: But there were other gods in the Bible, and they were designated so by God himself.
suggest to anyone trying to witness to a Witness, to stick to the deity
of Christ and salvation by grace. Do not go into the eternal substance
of the soul and various other weird winds of doctrines.>From the New World Translation, these verses prove the deity of Jesus
Christ (the first reference is for God and the second one is for Jesus):
No other gods...Deut 32:29>John 1:1
"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.
Mighty God...Isa 10:20,21>Isa 9:6Reply: 1 Cor 8:6 says "there is only one God, the Father," which pretty much excludes the Son, Jesus. The context of Isaiah 4x deals with the pagan gods of the nations, and as we have seen above, others can be called God. It is interesting how other versions made by trinitarians have handled this verse at Isaiah 9:6:
Immutable...Mal 3:6>Heb 13:8Reply: The Zondervan NASB Study Bible says Heb 13:8 pertains to faith. As for what is implied here, a trinitarian does not really believe in God's immutability. Let us look at the 2 scriptures to see why not:
Created alone...Isa 44:21>John 1:2,3 [Ed. should be Isa 44:24]We know that Jehovah, was not really alone at the time of creation because Job 38:6, 7 tells us: "When I laid the foundation of the earth ... all the sons of God shouted for joy". The angels shouted for joy when Jehovah, through His Son, "laid the foundations of the earth".
Worshipped...Matt 4:10>Rev 5:11-14Reply: Daniel is worshipped at Dan 2:46 ASV, KJV
Omnipotent...Jer 32:17>Php 3:21Reply: "Ah Lord Jehovah! behold, thou hast made the heavens and the earth by thy great power and by thine outstrethed arm; there is nothing too hard for thee" Jer 32:17
Omniscient...1 John 3:20>Col 2:3Reply: "because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 1John
When Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God" this was a claim to be GodReply: John 5:17-19 says "And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did
(John 5:18).
The Trinity:Reply: I counted 4 up there, but then math is relative to a Trinitarian.
Who raised Jesus from the dead?
God>Acts 4:10
Father>Gal 1:1
Son>John 2:19-21
Spirit>Rom 8:11
Plurality in the Godhead...Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7...God refers to Himself as "us".Reply: The Jews have always regarded this as God speaking to his heavenly assembly of angels. (Job 1:6) Were they not with him at creation? (Job 38:4-7)
Matt 28:19 says that we are to baptise in the name (onoma is theReply: Using a singular form of NAME does not necessarily denote singularity.
singular form of name in the Greek) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus is called God (John 20:28) and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3,4).Reply: Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says:
What of John 20:28? Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed
towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th
Century NT.
Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address.
(see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p.
183
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more
primitive messianism of v.31. (see The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197,
198
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize
him as divine."
While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although
in customary Johannine and NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is
impossible that Thomas and John would be personally equating Jesus with
the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus
himself has explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124
John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge,
observed: "The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh.
xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without
qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ
himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say
to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord
and my God!" And so in a footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The
author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response
to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed
as 'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New
Testament, page 503.
AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH
GOSPEL, 125-126,
"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated
by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own
christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to refer to
Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were suspected of heresy
in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation
and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is
both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a
reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus'
resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as lord and in God
who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually
makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 belief
in both God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is
particularly singled out.... If we understand Thomas's confession as an
assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 becomes an anti-climax."
Does Jn 20:28 say what trinitarians think it says? No. There is nothing
there that talks of Jesus as being God the Son, the second person of a
consubstantial Trinity.
"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted
with the OT in Greek, the term QEOS would have seemed rich in content since
it signified the Deity, the Creator of heaven and earth, and also could
render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the covenantal God, and yet was
able of extremely diverse application, ranging from the images of pagan
deities to the One true God of Israel, from heroic people to angelic beings.
Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term QEOS up
to the end of the 1st century A.D., there is an occasional application
of the term to human beings who perform divine functions or display divine
characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270
Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something
like that between King and ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary,
or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right hand man; all God does
he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All
traffic, both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ."
The Debate about Christ, p. 30
"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek
speculation about substance and natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the
New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289.
If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange
that Thomas used the nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the
vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of Mopsuestia could have been
correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28.
This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is
stated as: "In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative
KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e.
both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified
by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer
147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view."
Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49;
Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12;
4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1;
2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is
therefore translation Greek.]
Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35;
Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2;
Phil 1:3)
Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) -
(Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2;
Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)
There are no exceptions to this rule.
"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and
touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched;
but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him
every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"
Explainations:Reply: It should be noted that protoktizo was not in common use back in the first century, and would not be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly though, when this word was eventually used, it was used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria notes: "Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6.
Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Col 1:15. The word
firstborn refers to Him being the first in rank over all creation. He
is also called "the firstborn from the dead" in Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5.
This refers to His resurrection. The word for firstborn in the Greek is
prototokos. This does not mean first created (as Jehovah's Witnesses
say). If Jesus were the first created the word protoktistos would have
been used.
First and Last...Isa 44:6>Rev 1:17,18Reply: When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus is the Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12). The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is described as one who was *given*
"Christ is called the beginning and the end, because he is the
beginning and the consummation of the Church, which was
founded by his first, and will be completed by his second
appearance."--(Erasmus, Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E. [quoted in
"Our Heavenly Father has no Equals", by unitarian Donald R.
Snedeker])
"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis
Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is
the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be
accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the
work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum,
Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as
quoted by Snedeker, ibid])
The First and the Last
"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master,
whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual
Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of
mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the
Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted
in Concessions, by John Wilson])
"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater
power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the
most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed,
mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as
a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum
Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])
"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first
and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense
as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12,
may denote Christ's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not absolutely
decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I
am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom
thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest
from the beginning." The same explanation may be given of
chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last,
again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's
resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to
the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in
Concessions])
All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who
have not viewed these titles as denoting any ontological oneness of identity
between Christ and the Father. The last example, by Michaelis, is
especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last"
was being applied to Christ in reference to his death and resurrection.
This is how I view it, though in a slightly different manner, namely, that
Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last
to be so resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the
last" have this limitation. Let us take a look? "I am the first and
the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things
saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the
dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and Col 1:18.
Can you really beleive that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before
the scribal changes/ Tiqqune Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting,
O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see also New Jerusalem
Bible. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation.
Since God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be
included. The Bible never speaks of only Jesus' human-self/human nature/second
nature dying. This is a 4/5th century Cappadocian thought read back into
the scriptures.
Only Savior...Isa 43:11>Acts 4:12Reply: But there were other saviours. "And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." Judges 3:9, 15
Lord of lords...Deut 10:17>Rev 17:11
Holy...1 Sam 2:2>Acts 3:14
Source of Lving Waters...Jer 17:13>John 4:10-14
Stone of Stumbling...Isa 8:14,15>1 Pet 2:7,8
King of Israel (In a spiritual sense)...Isa 44:6>John 1:49
Judgement Seat...Rom 14:10>2 Cor 5:10
Sent Holy Spirit...John 14:26>John 16:7
Jesus is on with (John 10:30), and the exact representation of (Heb
1:3)
the Father. In Him dwells all the fulness of the divine quality (Col
2:9).
No man has seen God at any time (Exo 33:20; John 1:18, 6:46; 1 Tim
6:16), but God is seen (Gen 32:30; Exo 24:9-11, 33:11). This apparant
contradiction can be explained by the preincarnate Christ (who is God).
Reply: There is a simple
and less confusing way to explain the above. There is something called
the Schaliach Principle which is explained this way, "The main point of
the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent
is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly
appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle."
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey
Wigoder
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites
the Jewish halachic law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He
then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and
dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This
is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the
messenger was
commonly a slave" (Murray 18).
George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary
on Hebrews (Anchor Bible series). Buchanan notes that "a man's agent is
like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of
attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He also adds "The New
Testament apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of
God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the same context, could
say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The
Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
In the Bible, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred
to as GOD.
Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And
the angel of Jehovah found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness,
by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with her.
Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake
unto her, Thou art a God that seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked
after him that seeth me?"
The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but
her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke to here.
Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah
and his wife. Verse 21 and 22 says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more
appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel
of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because
we have seen God."
Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name.
Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame
of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush
burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further on down this
angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid
to look upon God." Look at what this angel further says, " I AM THAT I
AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM
hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."
Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel
before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place
which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice;
provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name
is in him." Ex 23:20
Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God
was to those who saw them. Why? Because God cannot be confined by his own
creation. 1 Kings 8:27 says, "But will God in very deed dwell on the earth?
behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much
less this house that I have builded!"
The temple that Solomon built is not enough to hold Jehovah, and then
v. 49 tells us that God dwells in heaven. Why.
Because Jehovah says, "Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not
see me and live." The awesome power, glory and being of Jehovah cannot
be restricted by his own creation. The footnote at 1 Kings in the MacArthur
Study Bible NKJV tells us that Jehovah "far transcended containment by
anything in creation." (cf. Zondervan NASB Study Bible) Also, as a "spiritual
Being" (Jn 4:24 Williams NT), God is invisible, and the Bible stresses
this over and over. (John 1:18; 6:46, Col 1:15, Rom 1:20, 1 Tim 1:17, Heb
11:27, 1John 4:12).
What of Heb 1:3 though? Vincent says, "We come nearer to the sense
of the word in this passage in the story of Moses' vision of the divine
glory, Exod xxxiii. 18-23; xxxiv. 5, 7."
Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible adds
this of Moses,
"In the OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his most intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18; 33:11.18-23; Num 12:7,8; Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John 9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb 8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35 the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."So there were similarities in the representational aspects of both Moses and Jesus, without either having to share nature or essence or Godhood in a consubstantial manner.
It should be noted that we are also ONE with God. John 17:11 says, "Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are."
Jesus says, "...the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28) ThisReply: But the text does not say that this only refers to Christ when he was on earth. This is a 4th century interpretation read back into this verse. Jesus showed us how to use this same Greek word right in the next chapter, "Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord." A relationship between servant and his lord is one of rank, authority and superiority.
refers to the Father having a greater position when Christ was on earth.
He did not say that the Father is better than Him because they are equal
in essence.
Embrace the freedom of the One God, and rid
yourself of the shackles of an errant theology.
Back to Main Page
Heinz Schmitz
Jehovah's Witnesses