Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2/ Bible Inerrancy and the Mindset of JW Opposers
Are they just like the King James Only Cult?
Unless otherwise states, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version
John: Since you are so eager to mention the Pharisees , why don't you check out the activities of your group and see how close you resemble them.


Reply: The Pharisees were the religious rulers in the early 1st century and keepers of strict tradition, whereas, Jesus, in contrast, was part of a minority group that placed God and the Scriptures over tradition. Trinitarian Christendom are the religious rulers of today and uphold the unbiblical traditions if idolatry, the Trinity and other Greek philosophical beliefs, while Jehovah's Witnesses stress God and the Bible and return to the Christianity taught in the Bible.

John: The Bible makes it clear that salvation is a gift. All the door knocking in the world won't do you any good. No-one and I mean no-one is good enough to make it to Heaven on their own merit. If that was the case the Mosaic law would have been sufficient , provided that one could conceivably keep all the commandments.
Reply: No one is saying anything different. You are being fed dirt on us that is simply geared towards hatred, and nothing else. Jesus Christ, did give us a work to do though, and we would be less than Christian if we did not follow his grand commision.
Mk 16:15, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation." Mt 28:19, 20, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."
True Christians would share in the preaching work. We are even told to imitate Paul in this regard (1Cor 4:16). We are told to evangelize, "I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry." 2 Tim 4:1-5
This is starting to sound like works, does it not? "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith." Jas 2:24 Yes, faith, accompanied by works is what eventually saves us. The Bible has always promoted this type of works.
John: However , it was necessary for God to become a man in order to reconcile us to Himself. The Son gave up his position in Heaven [ his equality with the Father] [ see Philippians 2:6-8], became a human and died on the cross for our sins, past , present and future. Because of this the Father exalted Him and gave Him a name [authority, position] that is above every other name in the visible and invisible universe.
Reply: It was not necessary for God to become man, and it certainly was not an equivalent to the life we lost in Adam. The Bible tells us how things are paid back, "But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" Ex 21:23, 24 What does the bible say we lost? We lost our Adamic (perfect) life via Adamic sin. And Jesus, as an Adamic (perfect) man, can get that back for us.
"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned" Rom 5:12
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1Cor 15:22
"So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 1Cor 15:45
"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a *ransom* for all" Jesus as a perfect man fulfilled the duties of a ransom. He died for us, and that is something God simply cannot do.
" Surely you Yahweh are from ancient times, my holy God, who never dies." Hab 1:12 NJB
"Now unto the King eternal, *immortal*, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." 1Tim 1:17
The death of the Almighty God Jehovah is far too big a price to pay for the perfect life we lost in Adam.
Moving on...it is special pleading to say that the harpazo at Phil 2:6 means Jesus had equality with the Father. Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians:
"It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"
If we read the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not. That is why many versions read differently than the way you propose (and others think) it should say..
"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." RSV "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped" ASV
"did not count equality with God something to be grasped" NJB, NIV
"he never considered seizing the chance to be equal to God" 21st Century NT
"did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" NAB
"he laid no claim to equality with God" REB
"he did not think to snatch at equality with God" NEB etc etc etc....
After all, isn't trying to grasp at equality with God is how we reached our state of Adamic sin in the first place (see Genesis 3:5).
John: Before you jump and tell me that this proves that the Father is greater than the Son, let me tell you that I agree. He is greater in terms of function and not substance. That is why Jesus said that the Father and I are one[ not the same person but the same substance]. The Jews certainly understood what He meant [but not the Jehovah's witnesses]. They [Jews] wanted to stone Him for blasphemy and "because that ,thou, being a man, makest thyself God." [John 10:33]. Again when the disciples asked Him to show them the Father what did He say? " Have I been such a long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,..He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?"[John14:9] Did Jesus imply that He was the same person as the Father? Certainly not! He was simply indicating what Paul said in a later letter about the equality of the Son to the Father: "God [the Father] ...had spoken through the Son , whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [ Jesus=creator]; Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, [ all about substance ,Heinz ]and upholding all things by the word of his power,[ Not even Michael the archangel could do that- wake up Heinz] when he had by himself purged our sins [ all by himself, hmmm that is POWER ], sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [Hebrews 1:2-3] In today's language, the CEO told the V.P. of Human Affairs: " A job well done Son, you be the King of Kings, Lord of Lords " And that is what my faith is all about my friend. I only trust in the cleansing work of the blood of Jesus and I answer to no human organization in regards to how I ought to worship.
Reply: Perhaps you should join an organization, as then you would not be troubled with erroneous and unbiblical ideas like those mentioned above. As for John 10:33, "Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you a man, claim to be a god." One God/One Lord by Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit p.482
Consider the following exceptions...
"claim to be a god" NEB
"Makest thyself a god" Bowes, Sharpe, Robert Young's Concise Commentary
"Make yourself out to be a god" Fenton
"Are deifying yourself" Wuest
"For making a mortal like yourself into a god" Unvarnished NT
 Torrey's translation lowercases the word as "god," while the interlinear reading of The Emphatic Diaglott says "a god."
Why? Because Jesus goes on to quote Psalm 82. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, "Christ's point is that if the O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, then the Jews should not oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God."
Also, you again mentioned Hebrews 1, which shows Jesus superiority over the prophets, and mainly the angels. Why? In the past these were used to mediate between God and men. As such, prophets like Moses could be called a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1). Angels were called gods at (Ps 8:5; 97:7 and 138:1). Even judges (or perhaps angels) were called gods at Psalm 82, as we have seen above. Moses, the angels, and the judges were God to whomever they were mediating for. Those that have seen them, have seen the Father they were representing. But they have been superceded. As Hebrews points out, now we have Jesus. He has been given a functional equality with God, but just like these other gods, he is not one in substance with God. To be one in substance means to be that same being. The words "substance" or "essense" do not appear in the Bible, these are 4th century philosophical innovations that were introduced into Xtian theology, but they have no bearing on Bible truth. I have already gone into detail about some of the terms used above in our previous letter,  but let me expand.
Jesus is the image of God, but then, we are also made in God's image. (Gen 1:26)
How else does the Bible use the term "image/eikon?"
Consider Matt 22:20 where Jesus asked, while pointing to a coin, "Whose is this image (eikon) and superscription? They say unto Him, Caeser's." Does this mean that coin bears the substance/essence of Caeser, that the coin was fully Caeser and fully coin? Absolutely not. There are prototypes, and then there are representatives, which is what Hebrews 1 is driving at. As you pointed out "CEO told the V.P. of Human Affairs"....the CEO is never the same substance/essence as the next in command. They are 2 different people. When God says "Sit thou at my right hand" to Jesus, is he mocking our intelligence when we fully know that to sit at someone's right hand not only makes you seperate in substance, but it puts you in a different position altogether?
John: More Bible Truths Dear Heinz: I checked some of our previous correspondence and guess what I found: {Their New World Bible translation done by "scholars" who knew neither Greek nor Hebrew was full of errors. Meanings of words in the original languages were twisted to fit their particular viewpoint and doctrines. >>Do you think that God would allow someone to ruin his word, and make it full of errors? Is God so weak in your mind? Give me a "for instance" of the above fallacious statement. } Well, well, it's my turn to ask you the same question: You quoted the following in your rebuttal of my so-called article >>John's information starts off with a false premise and builds from there. We will see that the Name has been removed, and that the consequence has been the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is by killing off Jehovah/Yahweh that Trinitarians can deify and worship "the creature rather than the Creator." Rom 1:25 << Do you think that Jehovah would let something like that happen? Do you think He would allow all these bad Greeks to change His word? If He allowed it then , what makes you think that He would not allow it now with the New World Translation or any other for that matter?
Reply: When Jehovah made the promise that he would keep his word pure (Ps 12), that does not mean that there would not be some minor tampering. In fact, you might say, that by the closing words of the Bible, that he even anticipated it (Rev 22:18, 19). Many textual scholars like Colwell and Metzger agree that the text of the King James Version is the most corrupt that there is. Yet, when the average person examines them, we are hard-pressed to find them. That is because the Word of God  and especially the message has remained virtually unchanged, despite the variations.
You, however, said "Their New World Bible translation done by "scholars" who knew neither Greek nor Hebrew was full of errors." That is a little different than an occasional corruption creeping in. Professor/AuthorAlan S Duthie says that the New World Translation is no more "full of heresies" than any other version. The reason that some, like Professor Jason Beduhn can praise the NWT, and others damn it comes down to bigotry and prejudice, pure and simple.
As for God's seeming inability to preserve his Name, this is false. He has in fact preserved it 6828 times in the Hebrew mss. It is the Christians that revile God's name that have even then, failed to translate it.
Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote about failing to include the Divine Name:
"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators
agree with you."
The ISV commitee has also refused to translate the Sacred Name due to financial considerations. For more click here. I think that is pathetic and unchristian.
It is also Christians that have divided up the Bible into Old and New Testaments, something God never did. The Bible tells us that there are those that revile his name. (Psalm 74:10) It also tells us that the Church would be over-run with apostasy.
 In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:13-16, Revised Standard Version) True Christianity is a hard, cramped road, found by only the "few." These "few" were warned that seemingly harmless "false prophets" would try to sidetrack them onto the "easy" way "that leads to destruction."
Over 30 years later the apostle Peter wrote: "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not. ."—2 Peter 2:1-3.
"The way of the truth," the way "that leads to life," is the way of true Christianity. The "false prophets," or "false teachers," are the apostate 'wolves in sheep's clothing' who began to make their presence felt among the early Christians even before the death of the apostles. (1 John 2:18, 19; 4:1-3) The apostle Paul also gave warning about such "oppressive wolves." He identified them as men who would "speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:29, 30) From the second half of the first century onward, these false teachers 'quietly brought in destructive sects,' exploiting the early Christians "with counterfeit words." Because of these apostates, "the way of the truth," true Christianity, was "spoken of abusively."
Consider the fruits of orthodoxy. The Christological/Trinitarian controversy that plagued the Church known for its violence.
"Bishop Athanasius, a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents excommunicated, and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped and imprisoned and exiled to different provinces....Athanasuis possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence...Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust.." When Jesus Became God by Rubenstein, pp. 6, 107
Even Constantine, under who's direction we have the Trinity, Christmas and the Cross, was a Sun Worshipper who killed his Son and had his wife boiled alive...and this was done AFTER he gave us these things. Food for thought, is it not? For more click here.
John: You also stated that >>It was common to inflate the position and deity of Christ by adding to the text, and this is something that happened quite early on. When researching Textual Criticism (and reading books like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman), it becomes clear that corruption in favor of the theology of the mainstream theology of the time happened almost immediately. Here are a few examples: >>>> Then you go on to quote examples that are not relevant with what is happening today. When I checked my King James Bible I did not find any of these anomalies. i.e. your examples don't apply today.
Reply: Oh believe me, the changes are well documented. You can ask any KJV-Only person, like the ones at:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.txt
av1611.org
The examples I gave you were in ancient mss...and the important thing to remember is that these changes were made by the victors, not the fringe "heretical" groups. The orthodox Trinitarian Xtians were the ones that have attempted time and again to corrupt scriptures to fit their theology, so your complaint is flat and unwarranted. The NWT translators have not changed the Hebrew or Greek text like those in times past. I asked you to give me a "for instance,"  and you have ignored this query. It seems to be that many have a conplaint, but few can back it up with facts.
This leads to something else though. There are a plethora of newer Bible versions that termed "paraphrased," "dynamic equivalent,""thought for thought," or "meaning based" like the Good News Bible, The Message, The Living Bible, New Living Translation, God's Word, NIrV, Contemporary English Version etc that have taken many more liberties than the NWT, but few complain about these since the changes favor the "orthodox/mainstream" position.
John: In previous letters I asked you to tell me why Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath when the Jews knew very well that the title referred to their covenant God Jehovah. Do you think He was saying that just to "piss them off"? Jesus also claimed that He is the Truth and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the living bread, the vine etc, etc which are clearly attributes of the almighty Jehovah. If He has all of the characteristics of Jehovah, He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords [ Revelation 19:16] is it not possible that He may be equal to Him or be Him ? The name Jehovah applies to the one and only God who acts in history in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Reply: It is sad to see a good man like you resort to bad language like using the vernacular for "urinate" to make your point. True, the Bible does employ this word,...but not in the same sense as you do. (2Ki 18:27; Is 36:12; 1Sam 25:22, 34; 1Ki 14:10)
Many in the Bible share titles, but that does not make them same being/essence/substance. Consider:
Son of God (angels) Gen 6:1,2; Job 1:8; 38:7; (Solomon) 2Sam 7:14; (Adam) Lu 3:38
King of Kings (Artaxerxes) Ezra 7:12;  (Nebuchadrezzar) Ezekiel 26:7/Dan 2:37
Apostle (Jesus) Hebrews 3:1; (Peter) 1Peter 1:1; (Paul) Rom 1:1 etc
God (Jesus) Jn 1:1; angels (Ps 8:5;97:7;138:1); Solomon (Ps 45:6); Moses (Ex 4:16; 7:1)
Lord (Abraham) 1Pet 3:6 (Saul)1Sam 24:8; (David) 2Sam 11:9; (Joab) 2Sam 11:11 etc
Savior (Jesus) Ac 13:23; (Jehovah) Is 43:3; (Othniel) Jg 3:9; (Ehud) Jg 3:15
Judge (Jehovah) Jg 11:27; (Jesus) Jn 5:22; (Humans) see Book of Judges
Satan/Devil (Judas) John 6:70; (Peter) Matt 16:23
Interestingly, the King James Only crowd makes much of the similarities between Jesus and Satan in newer Bibles:
"1)    Just about everybody knows the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan.  The word "Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible. Isaiah 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

(2)    But what about the NIV?  The word "Lucifer" is clean, bald-headed gone and now this creature is identified as the "morning star".  Lucifer is the "morning star" in the NIV. How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

(3)    So we know that in the NIV the "morning star" is a negative, evil figure.  Right?  He was fallen from heaven.  He was cast down to the earth.  Can we find the "morning star" anywhere else in the NIV?  Yes!  The following passages in the NIV show the
"morning star" as Jesus Christ!  But the NIV just called the fallen creature of Isaiah 14:12 "morning star".  Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV!  Lord have mercy, Jesus!  Help me, Lord.

NIV:  Revelation 22:16,
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

NIV:  2 Peter 1:19,
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day
dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

NIV:  Revelation 2:28--
I will also give him the morning star."
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivsatan.htm

Since, in the Bible Kings can be referred to as "stars" (cf Num 24:17...the scripture in Isaiah had its earlier fulfillment in the King of Babylon at Is 14:4, and we cannot argue that the Babylonian King is ontologically one with Satan), it is quite evident in the Bible that positioning and titles are relative to the context and the almighty King Jehovah.
The point that I am making is that the mindset that condemns Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation can also be seen in the KJVO Cult crowd. Much of the arguments used by you John, are reminiscent of the anti-intellectual arguments used by this misguided crowd. I would like to help you come out of this darkness to the light of God's truth, given the chance.

In conclusion. Jehovah cannot be the Son, and he is never referred to as a Son. Jehovah is only described as the Father (Is 64:8; Deut 32:6).
Jesus is God's perfect agent, better than his agents in the past.
"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).

William Barclay points to something interesting in his commentary on The Letter to the Hebrews, "he [the writer of Hebrews] calls him the mediator, the mesites. Mesites  comes from mesos, which, in this case, means in the middle. A mesites is, therefore, one who stands in the middle between two people and brings them together. When Job is desperately anxious that somehow he should be able to put his case to God, he cries out hopelessly: 'There is no umpire, mesites, between us.' (Job 9:33)"
This is interesting as the Zondervan NASB Study Bible says of this verse, "God is so immense that Job feels he needs someone who can help him, someone who can argue his case in court."
By pushing a Trinity doctrine you are robbing God of his grandeur and Jesus of his role as mediator.
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
We should strive to keep the Bible pagan-free, don't you think?
vale amice

Back to Main Page
Email Me
Heinz Schmitz
Jehovah's Witnesses