Jehova's Witness Beliefs?
- Thread starter oyster67
- 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.
Hey bud 
. Please refer back to my previous posts/conversation with Kedge in this thread. the debate ended pretty open-ended and I think it was kind of decided that the whole name thing is a subjective theory and not really objective as the need to know a name for a relationship isn't important for everyone.
. Please refer back to my previous posts/conversation with Kedge in this thread. the debate ended pretty open-ended and I think it was kind of decided that the whole name thing is a subjective theory and not really objective as the need to know a name for a relationship isn't important for everyone.
Jesus Christ is just one in God. Their is also the Father and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not the belief that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one being who transforms Himself into 3 persons, although the Watchtower sure would like you to think that's what the Trinity is. That belief is actually called Oneness and is easily disprovable through the passages in the Bible where Jesus prays and talks to the Father (Jesus isn't schizophrenic lol), also the part in the Bible where Jesus says that the Father is greater than He. For years with the Witnesses I was taught that this was the Trinity. It's not even close.
Also, Jesus never spiritually died. It says that He went to Hell (Sheol) for 3 days and preached to the spirits in prison (whom I'm guessing are the people who had died before the blood-covering of Jesus' death)
Dude, take it EASY. He's not Muslim and if he was I'm sure he would be fighting for ISIS after that post haha. Gotta have the Love in everything you say and do.
That being said, Kedge, take a look at Bowman's avatar. That's a pretty cool Trinity graph, if you need a more detailed (and scriptural) explanation, feel free to PM me anytime
Also, Jesus never spiritually died. It says that He went to Hell (Sheol) for 3 days and preached to the spirits in prison (whom I'm guessing are the people who had died before the blood-covering of Jesus' death)
Dude, take it EASY. He's not Muslim and if he was I'm sure he would be fighting for ISIS after that post haha. Gotta have the Love in everything you say and do.
That being said, Kedge, take a look at Bowman's avatar. That's a pretty cool Trinity graph, if you need a more detailed (and scriptural) explanation, feel free to PM me anytime
Last edited:
Dude, take it EASY. He's not Muslim and if he was I'm sure he would be fighting for ISIS after that post haha. Gotta have the Love in everything you say and do.
That being said, Kedge, take a look at Bowman's avatar. That's a pretty cool Trinity graph, if you need a more detailed (and scriptural) explanation, feel free to PM me anytime
That being said, Kedge, take a look at Bowman's avatar. That's a pretty cool Trinity graph, if you need a more detailed (and scriptural) explanation, feel free to PM me anytime
He just happens to use the same arguments as followers of islam...
If it walks like a duck....
One more time why Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, with reference to the Greek in John 1:1
In English, the order of the sentence generally determines the use of the noun. The subject usually comes first. However, in Greek, the word order is flexible, and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical functions. For example, if there are two nouns and one has the definite article, it is the subject.
Word order is also employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally, if a word is thrown to the front of a clause or sentence, it is done so for emphasis. When the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.
A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. English versions usually say, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order is reversed.
Καί θεός ήν ό λόγος or (Kai theos en ho logos)
And God was the Word
We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article and is in the nominative case and we translate it accordingly “and the Word was God.”
Two questions, both of theological importance, come to mind
1. Why was θεός (theos or god) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?
The emphatic position of θεός (theos) stresses its essence of quality” “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definition article keeps us from identifying the Person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).
That means that the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has: lack of the article tells us the Jesus Christ is not the Father.
John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism
To state this another way, let’s look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
1. καί ό λόγος ήν ό θεός
“and the Word was the God” Sabellianism*
2. καί ό λόγος ήν θεός
“and the Word was a god” Arianism+
3. καί θεός ήν ό ΄λόγος
“and the Word was God” Orthodoxy
Mounce William D., Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar
*Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.
The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully God.
+ Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism
In English, the order of the sentence generally determines the use of the noun. The subject usually comes first. However, in Greek, the word order is flexible, and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical functions. For example, if there are two nouns and one has the definite article, it is the subject.
Word order is also employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally, if a word is thrown to the front of a clause or sentence, it is done so for emphasis. When the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.
A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. English versions usually say, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order is reversed.
Καί θεός ήν ό λόγος or (Kai theos en ho logos)
And God was the Word
We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article and is in the nominative case and we translate it accordingly “and the Word was God.”
Two questions, both of theological importance, come to mind
1. Why was θεός (theos or god) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?
The emphatic position of θεός (theos) stresses its essence of quality” “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definition article keeps us from identifying the Person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).
That means that the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has: lack of the article tells us the Jesus Christ is not the Father.
John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism
To state this another way, let’s look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
1. καί ό λόγος ήν ό θεός
“and the Word was the God” Sabellianism*
2. καί ό λόγος ήν θεός
“and the Word was a god” Arianism+
3. καί θεός ήν ό ΄λόγος
“and the Word was God” Orthodoxy
Mounce William D., Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar
*Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.
The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully God.
+ Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism
Ever run over road kill so many times you can't even recognize it anymore? That's how I feel about the JW marathon session...Don't get me wrong I agree with most of these things........It's just I have been agreeing for days and days and days ....smile
I notice no one has a "Mormon Post" going...or are they ok? at least we could recognize the road kill then again...sorry . I'm a bit frisky tonight...all in humor!
I notice no one has a "Mormon Post" going...or are they ok? at least we could recognize the road kill then again...sorry . I'm a bit frisky tonight...all in humor!
Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter inAlexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstreamTrinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism.
This is the main theological difference that the JWs have in my experience with them. The founders were Arian and this has spread though all their teachings. In some way or another Jesus comes into the theology and because they (JW's) think He is a created being it changes everything.
There is no sitting on the fence either Jesus is 100% God or He isn't
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstreamTrinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism.
This is the main theological difference that the JWs have in my experience with them. The founders were Arian and this has spread though all their teachings. In some way or another Jesus comes into the theology and because they (JW's) think He is a created being it changes everything.
There is no sitting on the fence either Jesus is 100% God or He isn't
And what makes anyone else's interpretation right?. Who existed first the Almighty God or the Son of God Jesus Christ?. In my research i have noticed that many people from many different places have said that God has no beginning and no end therefore eternal, some have also said that Jesus Christ the Son of God is eternal but logic and reason refutes this claim simply because of the obvious position in relation to each other. It's the same with earthly fathers and son, no one human being who is a father to a son with an ounce of sense would say that they and their son are the same age, it is illogical and unreasonable to think that, it's so obvious, well to me and others i have spoken to.
Also, why didn't Genesis tell us in the beginning that God's name is Jesus Christ?.
Also, why didn't Genesis tell us in the beginning that God's name is Jesus Christ?.
Last edited:
It means exactly what Bowman's avatar says it does. I use a comparison for my age group with power ranger zorgs and they get it almost immediately lol but Idk how well that reference would work here.
Jesus is a deity, He IS NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit, and He's God. the Father is a deity, He's NOT Jesus or the Holy Spirit, and He's God, the Holy Spirit is a deity, He's NOT Jesus or the Father, and He's God.
Think of the three leafs of a three-leaf clover. There is one stem (God, YHWH) and each leaf of this stem represents the three manifestations of YHWH (The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit).
It isn't interpretation. It's unbiased, objective Hebrew and Greek scripture. Notice Jesus' play on words to reveal Himself to the Jews. "Before Abraham was, I AM (YHWH's name revealed to Moses in Exodus)" They then attempted to stone Him because they knew exactly what He meant. Anyone with any sense of grammar would know that Jesus SHOULD have said "Before Abraham was, I was."
Genesis didn't say the name of Jesus because mankind wasn't ready for it. Mankind almost had a ZERO concept of Heaven as well. It wasn't until Jesus' teachings that man even had a hope for an afterlife.
"It's the same with earthly fathers and son, no one human being who is a father to a son with an ounce of sense would say that they and their son are the same age, it is illogical and unreasonable to think that, it's so obvious, well to me and others i have spoken to."
That's the problem with JW logic that I had to break from. God isn't a human being and isn't bound by space/time physics or biology. I found that when I was a JW, I put God in a box a lot to better understand Him. I made Him a human father, not a spiritual one. God DIDN'T do a lot of things in my rulebook. subconciously I told myself that He wasn't capable of that because it would defy human physics and logic. All JWs do it.
Trinity? No way, how could that ever be? Doesn't make sense.
You know what else doesn't make sense? A multitude of demons possessing just ONE man and calling themselves "Legion", how does that even happen? It's illogical....but it happened.
Jesus always existing with the Father and Holy Spirit, pshhh, like that could happen. Doesn't make sense.
But yet I believe a burning bush talked, a whale ate a man who lived, Jesus resurrected the dead, etc.
When you take God out of the human box the witnesses had you place Him in, things get a whole lot clearer.
Jesus is a deity, He IS NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit, and He's God. the Father is a deity, He's NOT Jesus or the Holy Spirit, and He's God, the Holy Spirit is a deity, He's NOT Jesus or the Father, and He's God.
Think of the three leafs of a three-leaf clover. There is one stem (God, YHWH) and each leaf of this stem represents the three manifestations of YHWH (The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit).
It isn't interpretation. It's unbiased, objective Hebrew and Greek scripture. Notice Jesus' play on words to reveal Himself to the Jews. "Before Abraham was, I AM (YHWH's name revealed to Moses in Exodus)" They then attempted to stone Him because they knew exactly what He meant. Anyone with any sense of grammar would know that Jesus SHOULD have said "Before Abraham was, I was."
Genesis didn't say the name of Jesus because mankind wasn't ready for it. Mankind almost had a ZERO concept of Heaven as well. It wasn't until Jesus' teachings that man even had a hope for an afterlife.
"It's the same with earthly fathers and son, no one human being who is a father to a son with an ounce of sense would say that they and their son are the same age, it is illogical and unreasonable to think that, it's so obvious, well to me and others i have spoken to."
That's the problem with JW logic that I had to break from. God isn't a human being and isn't bound by space/time physics or biology. I found that when I was a JW, I put God in a box a lot to better understand Him. I made Him a human father, not a spiritual one. God DIDN'T do a lot of things in my rulebook. subconciously I told myself that He wasn't capable of that because it would defy human physics and logic. All JWs do it.
Trinity? No way, how could that ever be? Doesn't make sense.
You know what else doesn't make sense? A multitude of demons possessing just ONE man and calling themselves "Legion", how does that even happen? It's illogical....but it happened.
Jesus always existing with the Father and Holy Spirit, pshhh, like that could happen. Doesn't make sense.
But yet I believe a burning bush talked, a whale ate a man who lived, Jesus resurrected the dead, etc.
When you take God out of the human box the witnesses had you place Him in, things get a whole lot clearer.
L
Hi Dan_473. So to just be perfectly honest I don't think I ever read the tract 'The Divine Name That Will Live Forever'. I don't know if it was made before I started really studying the bible as a teenager, so I can't personally comment on that. But I do remember parts of a video by that same name. One of the interesting parts of the video is when they talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found. Now among the dead Seas Scrolls that were discovered, they found some of the Hebrew Scriptures that were translated into Greek which date back to the first century, and they found that the tetragrammaton was used, solidifying the argument that during the first century when the Greek scriptures were written God's personal was still being used. The issue that comes up is that during these first 3 centuries, (the first century being when the Greek scriptures were written) is when the practice of not using Gods name began. So it's not surprising that it's hard to find the tetragrammaton in the original Greek scriptures. I hope I explained that well.
it's ok with me if someone wants to call God Jehovah.
to me, it's not whose business is it, but this is an internet forum... people ask questions and answers... sometimes a person will say that's not a good answer, here's a better one...
so if someone says the bible say we should call God Jehovah, i want to say a better answer...
to me, it's not whose business is it, but this is an internet forum... people ask questions and answers... sometimes a person will say that's not a good answer, here's a better one...
so if someone says the bible say we should call God Jehovah, i want to say a better answer...
L
Hi Dan_473 . I absolutely believe that God's personal name appeared in the original Greek scriptures for a couple of reasons.
Since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of God's personal name from the text would seem inconsistent.*During the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) It wouldn't make sense for James to make such a statement if no one in the first century knew or used God’s name.
The other reason I believe his name was in the original copies of the Greek Scriptures is because of the well known word Hallelujah. Some references for that are Revelation 19:1,*3, 4,*6 that you can look up and see it there. His name is embedded in it. Hallelujah comes from a Hebrew expression that literally means “Praise Jah.” “Jah” is a contraction of the name Jehovah. Many names used in the Christian Greek Scriptures were made from the divine name. Some reference works explain that Jesus’ own name means 'Jehovah Is Salvation'.
Since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of God's personal name from the text would seem inconsistent.*During the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) It wouldn't make sense for James to make such a statement if no one in the first century knew or used God’s name.
The other reason I believe his name was in the original copies of the Greek Scriptures is because of the well known word Hallelujah. Some references for that are Revelation 19:1,*3, 4,*6 that you can look up and see it there. His name is embedded in it. Hallelujah comes from a Hebrew expression that literally means “Praise Jah.” “Jah” is a contraction of the name Jehovah. Many names used in the Christian Greek Scriptures were made from the divine name. Some reference works explain that Jesus’ own name means 'Jehovah Is Salvation'.