Jehovah's Witness I Need Your Help

[Terrence]

For the JWs on board, I'd simply like to ask you a few questions to see how you would answer the following questions.

Thanks,

Terrence

1. In John 8:21-59 Jesus repeatedly claims the divine name "I AM" for Himself. The Jews understood that He was calling Himself God and wanted to stone Him for blasphemy (cf. John 5:18, 8:59, 10:30-36). Why did the Jews seek to stone Jesus if He wasn't claiming to be God, especially since execution by stoning was reserved by Jewish Law for only a few crimes?

2.Colossians 1:15-17 means that Christ created everything, would you agree or disagree?

3. I know you believe that there are false gods. That being the case, read John 1:1 and tell me if Christ is the "true" God or a "false" God. If Jesus is a "true God," how do you explain that Jehovah God commands us to have no other God besides Him (Ex. 20:3). Christ is either the One True God, or He is a false god (cf. Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).

How do you explain Thomas calling Jesus God and Jesus accepting His worship rathering that correcting his supposed blasphemy?

 

[Terrence]

Any JWs here?

 

[TJ1]

Hi Terrence.

1. In John 8:21-59 Jesus repeatedly claims the divine name "I AM" for Himself. The Jews understood that He was calling Himself God and wanted to stone Him for blasphemy (cf. John 5:18, 8:59, 10:30-36). Why did the Jews seek to stone Jesus if He wasn't claiming to be God, especially since execution by stoning was reserved by Jewish Law for only a few crimes?

It is a mistake to assume that "I AM" is a name of God. This is based on the KJV rendering of Exodus 3:14. But the Greek Septuagint renders this verse as 'ego eimi ho on,' which means 'I am the being.' So if John was actually quoting this verse from Exodus, he would have surely used this and not just ego eimi. You should consider also that others, not just Jesus, are quoted as saying ego eimi in John. In John 9:9, the blind man uses this expression, saying 'I am [he],' does this means he's claiming to be God? Of course not.

So how should the present tense ego eimi be understood at John 8:58? Note what J. H. Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek states: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress (Burton § 17).It is frequent in the NT: Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Jn 5:6; 8:58; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 26:31; 2 Cor.12:19,2 Ti.3:18; 2 Pt.3:4; 1 Jn 2:9;3:8."

See how he includes John 8:58 in this category? This would mean that a complete translation of Jesus' quote would say something like what the American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed, says, "I existed before Abraham was born!"

What accounts for the Jews' response? Read the context. They had just claimed, "You are not fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" (Vs. 57) Jesus then responds that he existed before Abraham, meaining he is older than Abraham, which would make him something more than human, though not necessarily God.

You are correct that at John 5:18 the Jews' accuse Jesus of implying that he was "making himself equal with God," but note Jesus' response:

John 5:19 (New International Version)
"Jesus gave them this answer: 'I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

Now does that sound like Jesus is equal to his God and Father? It sure sounds like he's arguing against that claim to me. Remember that the opposing Jews made many untrue claims about Jesus and his teachings. Eventually they used these false claims to put him to death.

2.Colossians 1:15-17 means that Christ created everything, would you agree or disagree?

Well, the Greek word for "all" can easily carry the implied word "other" if the context demands it. This can be clearly seen in Matthew 26:35 and elsewhere.

Matthew 26:35 (New International Version)
"But Peter declared, 'Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.' And all the other disciples said the same."

Now obviously, the NIV translators could have left out the implied word "other" here, and it would make little difference, Peter would still be a disciple himself. The addition of "other" just helps draw attention to the fact that Peter is a disciple and "all" is not absolute. We have the same situation in Colossians.

In Colossians 1:15, Jesus is called the "firstborn of creation." Whenever "firstborn" is used in Scripture followed by a genitival construction, in this case "of creation," the firstborn is always a member of the group in which he/it is firstborn. So simply stated, Jesus is "of creation," a member of creation himself. In the following verses it says that "all things" are created by means of him, but just as Peter wasn't excluded from being a disciple just because he is mentioned separate from 'all the disciples,' neither is Jesus excluded from being the "firstborn of creation" here. "All" shouldn't be taken as rigidly absolute.

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes the fine distinction that it is the Father "out of whom all things are" and the Son "through whom all things are." The Father, Jehovah, is the source of creation, while the Son, Jesus, is an agent in the creation of things.

3. I know you believe that there are false gods. That being the case, read John 1:1 and tell me if Christ is the "true" God or a "false" God. If Jesus is a "true God," how do you explain that Jehovah God commands us to have no other God besides Him (Ex. 20:3). Christ is either the One True God, or He is a false god (cf. Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).

Your premise is faulty. You say that there are only two options, "true" and "false." According to this, Jesus' being "the true light" would make the apostles, who are the "light of the world," 'false light.' (John 1:9; Matt. 5:14) Moses would be a 'false' god. (Ex. 7:1) And so on.

You see, we are commanded to have no other God but Jehovah, the Father, who is "the only true God." (John 17:1,3) But this does not mean that his servants, who have relative god-like powers and authority given to them by Jehovah, cannot be called gods in a relative sense. They are not false gods because they are not in opposition to the "true God," Jehovah.

Jesus is described as a "Mighty God," but only Jehovah is referred to as the Almighty God. (Isa. 9:6) This would suggest that his godship is indeed relative to his Father's.

How do you explain Thomas calling Jesus God and Jesus accepting His worship rathering that correcting his supposed blasphemy?

Well how should we interpret John 20:28; should we understand that it means Jesus is the "only true God?" John himself gives us the proper interpretation just three verses later.

John 20:31 (New International Version)
"But these are written that you may believe the Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

So we are not meant to understand Jesus as "God the Son," but the "Son of God." If Thomas' entire exclamation was meant to reference Jesus only, then it still must be understood in a relative sense.


I hope this was a helpful starting point to get some answers to your questions.

TJ

 

[BlaznFattyz]

"For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God,"...

"And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working. For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."...
​

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."... For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."

"You know neither Me, nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also."
​

the father sent the son, the son sent the holy spirit, and all are in agreement with each other, because they all proceed from God--of one accord. if jesus christ has been glorified by god and sits on the throne of god, if christ has been given authority over all things by god, if christ has life within himself, if christ forgives sins, if christ executes judgement, if christ is the way, the truth, and the life, if god proclaims christ as lord and all the angels worship him and sing praises to him, then christ is my Lord God and Saviour and i see glory and grace and honor of god in his son, therefore i praise him that created me and has given me salvation. i know him and he knows me.

​

 

[Terrence]

Yes, this was very helpful!! So let me get this stright as to not confuse you. From all that you said, we are to understand that Jesus is a created being, that He meant that He was preexisting before Abraham but was not God, and so for that, the Jews wanted to stone Him, that Thomas didnt call Jesus God and that we are to understand Jesus as the Son of God rather than God the Son?

Is this all what you're saying?

 

[TJ1]

From all that you said, we are to understand that Jesus is a created being...

Yes, that would be the natural understanding of "firstborn of creation," but this is not the only reason we believe that he is a created being. Other passages bear this out as well.

...that He meant that He was preexisting before Abraham but was not God, and so for that, the Jews wanted to stone Him...

The only thing John 8:58 tells us is that Jesus existed before Abraham, it has nothing to say as to whether or not Jesus is God. And yes, this was enough to make the Jews try to stone him. They were looking for any excuse to do so.

...that Thomas didnt call Jesus God and that we are to understand Jesus as the Son of God rather than God the Son?

If Thomas was referring to Jesus as 'my God,' it was in a relative sense. Note that at John 17:3 Jesus calls his Father "the only True God" and then mentions himself separately.


TJ

 

[Dor]

Jesus is described as a "Mighty God," but only Jehovah is referred to as the Almighty God. (Isa. 9:6)

Who is being talked about here and who is talking?
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Who did the Jews think he was?
John 10:30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

 

[TJ1]

Hi Dor.

Who is being talked about here and who is talking?
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

That is the Father, Jehovah, talking about himself. The context makes that clear.

Who did the Jews think he was?
John 10:30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Again, the opposing Jews, who were trying to kill Jesus, did not understand everything he said properly and even twisted his words. Should we believe the Jews when they said that Jesus was a Samaritan and had a demon? (John 8:48)

John Calvin, the famous Trinitarian, said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage [John 10:30] to prove that Christ is ... of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”

The truth of this is seen in what Jesus says later on in John 17 concerning his disciples.

John 17:11, 20-23 (New International Version)
"I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one ... I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

So the unbelieving Jews did twist Jesus' words saying that he "makest thyself God," but what was Jesus' response?

John 10:34-38 (New International Version)
"Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God's Son"? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.'"

First he brings their attention to the fact that human judges in the Old Testament, who were appointed by Jehovah God as his representatives, were properly called "gods," and then he tells them that he is also a representative from Jehovah and is called "God's Son." This means that their charge of him making himself equal to God based on this title has no merit, no more than the imperfect human judges properly being called "gods" made them equal to God.


TJ

 

[Dor]

Ok let me see if I understand this you are saying that all these are about God the Father.

1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

21:6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

 

[TJ1]

Ok let me see if I understand this you are saying that all these are about God the Father.

1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

21:6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Well, last time I was speaking only of Revelation 1:8. But these other verses you have brought up would be the Father speaking as well, based on the context.


TJ

 

[BlaznFattyz]

"That is the Father, Jehovah, talking about himself. The context makes that clear."

why would the father be that which was? saying it is the father makes it really unclear and disjointed from scripture.
the "is" is god the father and jesus the son and the holy spirit. but in the context of revelations, it is clear that the "is" is referring to christ and his diety as god.
however, if we look at it in the context of the messiah dying on the cross, the "was" becomes clear, and because he resurrected back to god he will come again, but this time for judgement, then the "is to come" is clear knowing that the son will come again with power and glory in the clouds.

I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. -- Jesus Christ

 

[Dor]

Well, last time I was speaking only of Revelation 1:8. But these other verses you have brought up would be the Father speaking as well, based on the context.


TJ

Ok so the Father is the first and last according to what you just said above. So last question.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth,and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


When did the Father die?

 

[Terrence]

LOL! Im sure he'll have an answer for that too.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

LOL! Im sure he'll have an answer for that too.

im not sure its an answer as much as it is a twist.

 

[TJ1]

Hi Dor.

Ok so the Father is the first and last according to what you just said above. So last question.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth,and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


When did the Father die?

This is a natural question to ask, and I figured you were going in this direction. Simply put, the Father didn't die, Jesus did, and that makes all the difference. Let me explain.

First of all, we have to keep in mind that more than one person can have the same title, but carry it in a different sense. Consider:

Isaiah 43:11 (KJV)
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

But now compare this statement with the following:

Nehemiah 9:27 (KJV)
"...and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies."

How did Jehovah provide "saviours" when there is "no saviour" beside him? The answer lies in the context. In Isaiah 43, Jehovah is comparing himself to the false gods of the nations, which are completely powerless to save anyone. In Nehemiah 9 Jehovah appoints men to deliver the people with his divine backing, thus they can be called "saviours," but in a relative, or limited, sense. As you can see, the context is the key. Now let's remember this point as we go to Revelation.

The fact is, in the book of Revelation, both the Father and the Son are called 'the first and the last,' but in entirely different contexts. This means that they are no more the same God than Jehovah and the men who were "saviours" are the same God. When Jesus was referred to as 'first and last' at Revelation 1:17 and 2:8, it was with definite limitations on the title.

Revelation 1:17,18 (NASB)
"Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."

Revelation 2:8 (NASB)
"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life..."

Did you notice that in both applications of this title, when used in reference to Jesus, it mentions his death and resurrection immediately after? That is significant. Jesus was the only one to be resurrected directly by Jehovah God. Thus he is "the first and the last" in that respect; then, after his resurrection by God, Jesus was given "the keys of death and Hades" so that he may resurrect others from that point on. (compare John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14)

When "the first and the last" is used in reference to the Father, no such limitation is placed on the title; in other words, it is not with respect to the resurrection only. Notice that in Revelation 22:13.

Revelation 22:13 (NASB)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

So we can see that we have one title, two different contexts. One with definite limitations, one without.

I hope this is helpful.


TJ

 

[TJ1]

im not sure its an answer as much as it is a twist.

Considering the context of the verses is not 'twisting' the scripture. How many times has it already been listed as a proof when the Jews say Jesus was claiming to be God, when the next verses show Jesus defending himself from such an accusation!

Should we just ignore that and so "twist" the scripture to say what we want it to say?


TJ

 

[Terrence]

Hey, I sent u a Private message. Did u check that out yet?

 

[TJ1]

Hi BF,

With respect to Revelation 1:8, you said:

why would the father be that which was? saying it is the father makes it really unclear and disjointed from scripture.
the "is" is god the father and jesus the son and the holy spirit. but in the context of revelations, it is clear that the "is" is referring to christ and his diety as god.
however, if we look at it in the context of the messiah dying on the cross, the "was" becomes clear, and because he resurrected back to god he will come again, but this time for judgement, then the "is to come" is clear knowing that the son will come again with power and glory in the clouds.

I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. -- Jesus Christ

Let's take a look at this in the context of Revelation chapter 1.

Revelation 1:4-8 (NASB)
"John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--
and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'"

In verses 4 and 5 it can be seen that "Him who is and who was and who is to come" is listed as a different person from "the seven Spirits" and "Jesus Christ." The number seven is often used in Revelation as a symbol for completeness. So "the seven Spirits" would represent the holy spirit flowing in its fulness.

This would show that Jesus Christ and the holy spirit, which was used in the inspiration of the apostle John, are not "Him who is and who was and who is to come." That leaves only the Father, "the Almighty."



TJ

 

[TJ1]

Hey, I sent u a Private message. Did u check that out yet?

Just got it. Thanks.


TJ

 

[Dor]

Lets extend the context just a few verses and see who was being talked about.

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Emphasis added.

Mark2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

And there are even more of them....where was the father ever spoken of as the son of man?