Questions about JW’s
- Thread starter NOV25
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lol, I'm the one out of my depth am I, what question have I failed to answer by anyone on this thread, what point have I run from, none! On the contrary, its others who run and hide from me! Its others who fail to answer my simple questions as they know by answering them they would be contradicting their biblical worldview that does not hold up to scrutiny. All you are able to do is throw words at me and nothing more, you can't even answer a basic question.
Did Jesus divinity die on the cross as you earlier stated by your comment of "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross", or was it simply his humanity that died, if it was only his humanity that died then why do you and others suggest it had to be God that died on the cross, if it was Jesus divinity that died on the cross then how is it possible an eternal God can die?
You can see the conundrum you're in and know you can't dig your way out of the hole you've dug yourself into, hence why you offer me nothing in way of an answer of explanation to the questions and points I made against you and can only claim "it's beyond me", lol. Nothing I've said has needed reference to your love of the watchtower literature, all I've done is pinned two of your beliefs against each other and asked you to explain how both can be true when both contradict each other. So again answer the question:
Did Jesus divinity die on the cross as you earlier stated by your comment of "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross", or was it simply his humanity that died, if it was only his humanity that died then why do you and others suggest it had to be God that died on the cross, if it was Jesus divinity that died on the cross then how is it possible an eternal God can die?
Did Jesus divinity die on the cross as you earlier stated by your comment of "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross", or was it simply his humanity that died, if it was only his humanity that died then why do you and others suggest it had to be God that died on the cross, if it was Jesus divinity that died on the cross then how is it possible an eternal God can die?
You can see the conundrum you're in and know you can't dig your way out of the hole you've dug yourself into, hence why you offer me nothing in way of an answer of explanation to the questions and points I made against you and can only claim "it's beyond me", lol. Nothing I've said has needed reference to your love of the watchtower literature, all I've done is pinned two of your beliefs against each other and asked you to explain how both can be true when both contradict each other. So again answer the question:
Did Jesus divinity die on the cross as you earlier stated by your comment of "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross", or was it simply his humanity that died, if it was only his humanity that died then why do you and others suggest it had to be God that died on the cross, if it was Jesus divinity that died on the cross then how is it possible an eternal God can die?
I admit that scriptures teach that angelic spirits are created by God, and that they, as well as all living beings, are indebted to God. But where does the bible teach that just because someone has been created by God they cannot be a ransom. I am well aware this is something you have reasoned out and believe, BUT where does the bibles teach this. The concept that a created being cannot ransom themselves is not taught in scripture. So again, please demonstrate to me where the bible teaches this, you will find this is nothing more than you're assumption.
If God created a perfect and sinless man, namely Adam, and that man disregarded his position and enslaved all his offspring to his own wrongdoing, then there is nothing in the bible that denies that another created perfect and sinless man cannot sacrifice his own perfect and sinless for what Adam gave up? Remember, what is God's prinicple on justice? "the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." (Exo 21:24,25). Likewise, A perfect and sinless human life was lost by Adam, and that was exactly what Jesus Christ came to cover over with his own perfect and sinless human body. Jesus was the equivalent sacrifice to Adam, hence the reason why Jesus is called the last Adam, "It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45).
(1 Corinthians 15:21) "..For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man.."
If God created a perfect and sinless man, namely Adam, and that man disregarded his position and enslaved all his offspring to his own wrongdoing, then there is nothing in the bible that denies that another created perfect and sinless man cannot sacrifice his own perfect and sinless for what Adam gave up? Remember, what is God's prinicple on justice? "the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." (Exo 21:24,25). Likewise, A perfect and sinless human life was lost by Adam, and that was exactly what Jesus Christ came to cover over with his own perfect and sinless human body. Jesus was the equivalent sacrifice to Adam, hence the reason why Jesus is called the last Adam, "It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45).
(1 Corinthians 15:21) "..For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man.."
Many people say things along the lines of "I really don't care about modern scholarship at all" when you show then things that go contrary to what they believe, the irony is that if these same scholars agreed with them they would care what they say, you, amoung other only reject what they say because you simply don't like what they're telling you.
The fact remains, modern scholarship is at the best it has been because they have the largest amount of manuscript material to access as well and modern technology in respect to spurious text, dating of texts, language evolution, as well as previous academic references and writings. The question you should be asking, why are trinitarian scholars saying John 1:1c is NOT defintie, its because they know the definite rendering simply DOES NOT WORK. The argument is basic, if Jesus is God by him being called "kai thoes en ho logos" (and god was the word) then Jesus is the God who he was with and the trinity itself, its that simple.
You forget, the qualitative translation "the word was divine" or "the word was a god" is not a modern translation of the text, scholars and translations of texts have been written this way since the 2 century! It is only now the scholarly community are coming out and admitting John 1:1c is not definite and rather qualitative, which is significant because them admitting this does not help their doctrine out in the slightest.
You made an assertion "There is no other version or translation of the bible that states that Jesus was merely 'a god'", I showed how this statement was completely false.
This statement is very foolish, since unless you can read the original languages you are not reading the bible but rather the translation of the bible into English, and the bibles you do read from are translated by scholars to whom you apparently do not care about. Please explain to me why old scholarship is better than modern scholarship.
The fact remains, modern scholarship is at the best it has been because they have the largest amount of manuscript material to access as well and modern technology in respect to spurious text, dating of texts, language evolution, as well as previous academic references and writings. The question you should be asking, why are trinitarian scholars saying John 1:1c is NOT defintie, its because they know the definite rendering simply DOES NOT WORK. The argument is basic, if Jesus is God by him being called "kai thoes en ho logos" (and god was the word) then Jesus is the God who he was with and the trinity itself, its that simple.
You forget, the qualitative translation "the word was divine" or "the word was a god" is not a modern translation of the text, scholars and translations of texts have been written this way since the 2 century! It is only now the scholarly community are coming out and admitting John 1:1c is not definite and rather qualitative, which is significant because them admitting this does not help their doctrine out in the slightest.
You made an assertion "There is no other version or translation of the bible that states that Jesus was merely 'a god'", I showed how this statement was completely false.
This statement is very foolish, since unless you can read the original languages you are not reading the bible but rather the translation of the bible into English, and the bibles you do read from are translated by scholars to whom you apparently do not care about. Please explain to me why old scholarship is better than modern scholarship.
I assume this is directed at me, even if it isn't I'll give a reply and then await the backhanded comment you have the custom of giving my Christian friend.
Firstly the NWT translators do not go around changing scripture just because certain scriptures do not fit into their ideology. Nor have they changed any scripture, rather they translate scripture according to the context and grammar of any given passage, the only time they have added things into scripture is when they insert the divine name YHWH into the NT, but give reasons as to why.
In regards to John 20:28 the text is no more troublesome than 2 Cor 4:4 is troublesome for either you or me. As I have mentioned to you before Jesus is God in a sense, he simply isn't the one God, since the 'one God' is only ever mentioned as being the Father. In 2 Cor 4:4 Satan is called "ho theos" of the world, or better put, "the God" of the world. Does the fact that Satan is "the god of the world" demonstrate he is the 'one God', no. Likewise, does John 20:28 necessitate that Jesus is the 'one God' because Thomas says that he is the 'God of him", no, since Jesus is a God.
As I've made clear to you before, the bible states there are many gods, but to the chsritians, only one God the Father. Jesus is rightly one of these Gods in scripture, as Isaiah 9:6, Hebrews 1:8 and John 20:28 express, he simply is NOT the "one God", since only the Father is ever spoken of a the unique 'one' and only God in the ultimate sense, hence why Jesus said in John 17:3 to the Father that he is "the only ture God". 1 Cor 8:4-6 states, "there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father.."
Again, other beings are called Gods, Moses is called God (Exo 7:1), Angels are called Gods (Ps 8:5, cp Heb 2:7), Humans are called Gods (Ps 45:6, John 10:34). Beings, when called God, does not necessitate that they are the 'one God', but if other beings can be called God in a sense how much more so can Jesus who has been appointed above all things bar the Father, rightly be called God. The fact remains, despite Jesus being called God, like everyone else who is referred to as God, he is not the 'one God', only the Father is.
(1 Corinthians 15:27, 28) "..For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.."
Insert crude comment below *v*
Firstly the NWT translators do not go around changing scripture just because certain scriptures do not fit into their ideology. Nor have they changed any scripture, rather they translate scripture according to the context and grammar of any given passage, the only time they have added things into scripture is when they insert the divine name YHWH into the NT, but give reasons as to why.
In regards to John 20:28 the text is no more troublesome than 2 Cor 4:4 is troublesome for either you or me. As I have mentioned to you before Jesus is God in a sense, he simply isn't the one God, since the 'one God' is only ever mentioned as being the Father. In 2 Cor 4:4 Satan is called "ho theos" of the world, or better put, "the God" of the world. Does the fact that Satan is "the god of the world" demonstrate he is the 'one God', no. Likewise, does John 20:28 necessitate that Jesus is the 'one God' because Thomas says that he is the 'God of him", no, since Jesus is a God.
As I've made clear to you before, the bible states there are many gods, but to the chsritians, only one God the Father. Jesus is rightly one of these Gods in scripture, as Isaiah 9:6, Hebrews 1:8 and John 20:28 express, he simply is NOT the "one God", since only the Father is ever spoken of a the unique 'one' and only God in the ultimate sense, hence why Jesus said in John 17:3 to the Father that he is "the only ture God". 1 Cor 8:4-6 states, "there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father.."
Again, other beings are called Gods, Moses is called God (Exo 7:1), Angels are called Gods (Ps 8:5, cp Heb 2:7), Humans are called Gods (Ps 45:6, John 10:34). Beings, when called God, does not necessitate that they are the 'one God', but if other beings can be called God in a sense how much more so can Jesus who has been appointed above all things bar the Father, rightly be called God. The fact remains, despite Jesus being called God, like everyone else who is referred to as God, he is not the 'one God', only the Father is.
(1 Corinthians 15:27, 28) "..For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.."
Insert crude comment below *v*
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. NWT
In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” NWT
Same Greek word used in both texts, why then does the watch tower insert “a” and change the capital “G” to lowercase in John 1 but performs no edit to John 20?
In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” NWT
Same Greek word used in both texts, why then does the watch tower insert “a” and change the capital “G” to lowercase in John 1 but performs no edit to John 20?
Yes many gods as born again children of God calls sons of God. . Not children of the JWs or any sect that lords it over the flock .. That idea points to the antichrists that teach a man must teach us.
Death must defined according to the scriptures. There are two kinds. Its the key needed in understanding .
The blood issue has changed because of it .What's next?
.
Death must defined according to the scriptures. There are two kinds. Its the key needed in understanding .
The blood issue has changed because of it .What's next?
.
The difference is in the context. The scholarly community today who are more or less completely trinitarian, who understand the original languages better than any other period throughout history other than the early centuries due to the abundance of resources they have discovered in the last century agree with NWT translators that John 1:1c, namely "and the Word was thoes", is qualitative and NOT definite, as the translation reads. The rendering "and the Word was God" is a definite rendering, since the 1970's scholars have been in agreement that John 1:1c is not saying Jesus WAS God by identity (the Word was God), but rather the expression is stating the Word has the same nature as God, (the Word was divine or Godlike). Even trinitarian James White in a debate with a JW, which can be seen on youtube, refused to admit John 1:1c was NOT definite despite him highlighting it is qualitative, the reason why he refused to admit it was because his own translations of John 1:1c are definite in rendering despite him stating its qualitative (See youtube time 1:52:40 - Jehovahs witnesses vs christianity James White vs Greg Stafford).
The reason why its translated the way it is in NWT, among another bible translations, is because if Jesus is God by the rendering 'the word was God', then Jesus is the God he was with implying his is the trinity, trinitarian scholars, even ones who debate JW's immensely admit this:
“The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and imply some sort of modalistic view of God which of course Trinitarians oppose.” “the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father- would be modalistics.” “Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error…. As surprising as it may seem, arguing that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son. - Rob Bowman (trinitarian), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.
“[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J (trinitarian)., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69
There are many many scholars and translations that render John 1:1c in a qualitative sense, it is not changing the bible, rather its translating the scripture within the parameters of the Greek language, this is irrefutable:
Scholars comments
"a god was the Word" - W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 490 (grammar alone)
"If translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [John 1:1c] would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted " - C. H. Dodd, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 1977
"In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation [why they have rendered John 1:1c as the Word was "a god"] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn
“[NWT] translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003, chapter 11
"Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [theós en ho lógos] could be rendered "the Word was a god" - Murray J. Harris, p. 60, Jesus as God, 1992
"and a God was the Word (i.e. a Divine being)" - Robert Young, Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary
"And the Word was divine" - Dr. Goodspeed, An American Translation, 19th impr, 1975
“the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being” – Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 317, John L. Mackenzie
“and the Word was of divine nature” – Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 1932
Bible translations
“and the Word was a divine being” - La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel, 1928.
“and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, 1935.
"and he was the same as God" – Good News Bible, 1976, by the American Bible Society
"and what God was, the Word was" – New English Bible NEB
"the Logos [Word] was divine" – A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt
"and the word was a divine being” – The New Testament, by Jon Madsen 2017
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland
“and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864
“and of a divine kind was the Word” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1946.
“and the Word was a God” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek, 1958.
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
“and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979.
ALL THE ABOVE ARE TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS AND TRANSLATIONS. There was no capitalization in the original languages as it is in English today, there was no difference between a small g and capital G, that is something English translations do for the ease of readers.
The reason why its translated the way it is in NWT, among another bible translations, is because if Jesus is God by the rendering 'the word was God', then Jesus is the God he was with implying his is the trinity, trinitarian scholars, even ones who debate JW's immensely admit this:
“The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and imply some sort of modalistic view of God which of course Trinitarians oppose.” “the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father- would be modalistics.” “Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error…. As surprising as it may seem, arguing that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son. - Rob Bowman (trinitarian), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.
“[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J (trinitarian)., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69
There are many many scholars and translations that render John 1:1c in a qualitative sense, it is not changing the bible, rather its translating the scripture within the parameters of the Greek language, this is irrefutable:
Scholars comments
"a god was the Word" - W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 490 (grammar alone)
"If translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [John 1:1c] would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted " - C. H. Dodd, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 1977
"In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation [why they have rendered John 1:1c as the Word was "a god"] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn
“[NWT] translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003, chapter 11
"Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [theós en ho lógos] could be rendered "the Word was a god" - Murray J. Harris, p. 60, Jesus as God, 1992
"and a God was the Word (i.e. a Divine being)" - Robert Young, Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary
"And the Word was divine" - Dr. Goodspeed, An American Translation, 19th impr, 1975
“the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being” – Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 317, John L. Mackenzie
“and the Word was of divine nature” – Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 1932
Bible translations
“and the Word was a divine being” - La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel, 1928.
“and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, 1935.
"and he was the same as God" – Good News Bible, 1976, by the American Bible Society
"and what God was, the Word was" – New English Bible NEB
"the Logos [Word] was divine" – A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt
"and the word was a divine being” – The New Testament, by Jon Madsen 2017
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland
“and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864
“and of a divine kind was the Word” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1946.
“and the Word was a God” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek, 1958.
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
“and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979.
ALL THE ABOVE ARE TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS AND TRANSLATIONS. There was no capitalization in the original languages as it is in English today, there was no difference between a small g and capital G, that is something English translations do for the ease of readers.
Deal with my previous questions. No amount of laughing from you is going to hide the fact you can't explain your own contradictions.
Did Jesus divinity die on the cross as you earlier stated by your comment of "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross", or was it simply his humanity that died, if it was only his humanity that died then why do you and others suggest it had to be God that died on the cross, if it was Jesus divinity that died on the cross then how is it possible an eternal God can die?
Did Jesus divinity die on the cross as you earlier stated by your comment of "The entire deal is off if some other than God dies on the cross", or was it simply his humanity that died, if it was only his humanity that died then why do you and others suggest it had to be God that died on the cross, if it was Jesus divinity that died on the cross then how is it possible an eternal God can die?
I believe that the bible covers the reality ot the Trinity in detail in addition to what is stated in the beginning of the first verse of John.
You can read your book and I will read my bible.
If John 1 is not definite in regards to the Trinity then there is no point whatsoever in reading the rest of the book (bible). I know what I believe and that I believe in what is clearly stated in the bible. I don't need the input of modern scholarship. It's not that I don't like what they are telling me but rather I don't care what they are trying to say. It's not important to me and certainly not spiritually edifying.
I really don't believe that anyone reading this thread is going to join the JW based on your posts and those others in support of them. It's not going to happen. You will not sway a single persons opinion. This is after all a Christian site so that should come as no surprise.
You can read your book and I will read my bible.
If John 1 is not definite in regards to the Trinity then there is no point whatsoever in reading the rest of the book (bible). I know what I believe and that I believe in what is clearly stated in the bible. I don't need the input of modern scholarship. It's not that I don't like what they are telling me but rather I don't care what they are trying to say. It's not important to me and certainly not spiritually edifying.
I really don't believe that anyone reading this thread is going to join the JW based on your posts and those others in support of them. It's not going to happen. You will not sway a single persons opinion. This is after all a Christian site so that should come as no surprise.
.
FAQ: Can God die?
A: No.
● Ps 90:1-2 . . O Jehovah, you yourself have proved to be a real dwelling for
us during generation after generation. Before the mountains themselves
were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and
the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.
Now; if the Son of God is really and truly God's offspring, then he can't die
either because just as human life reproduces human life, so God life would
reproduce God life.
FAQ: Can God sin?
A: No.
● Ps 11:7 . . Jehovah is righteous
● Ps 145:17 . . Jehovah is righteous in all his ways and loyal in all his works.
● Jas 1:13 . . With evil things God cannot be tried
Now if the Son of God is really and truly God's offspring, then he can neither
sin nor be tempted with evil because if the righteous God were to
reproduce, He would reproduce righteous God life just as unrighteous human
life reproduces unrighteous human life; and in point of fact, the Bible says as
much.
● 1John 3:9 . . Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin,
because His reproductive seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice
sin, because he has been born from God.
_
FAQ: Can God die?
A: No.
● Ps 90:1-2 . . O Jehovah, you yourself have proved to be a real dwelling for
us during generation after generation. Before the mountains themselves
were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and
the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.
Now; if the Son of God is really and truly God's offspring, then he can't die
either because just as human life reproduces human life, so God life would
reproduce God life.
FAQ: Can God sin?
A: No.
● Ps 11:7 . . Jehovah is righteous
● Ps 145:17 . . Jehovah is righteous in all his ways and loyal in all his works.
● Jas 1:13 . . With evil things God cannot be tried
Now if the Son of God is really and truly God's offspring, then he can neither
sin nor be tempted with evil because if the righteous God were to
reproduce, He would reproduce righteous God life just as unrighteous human
life reproduces unrighteous human life; and in point of fact, the Bible says as
much.
● 1John 3:9 . . Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin,
because His reproductive seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice
sin, because he has been born from God.
_