Experiences with JW's

[Jin-Roh]

(JW is short for Jehovah Witness if you don't know)

Some of them came to my door just a few minutes ago. I sat them down and we started comparing Scriptures. I pointed out that my NIV was very close to their bible.

The discussion went sour. When I starting bringing up translation issues I was "digging to deep into it." When I brought up the Ego Eimi (John 8:58) statements they must've seen where I was going becuase they took over the conversation, talking about the great commision and what not, and left the my house.

My only other experience with them recently was at a starbucks. I also brought up the Ego Eimi statements and they just kept dodging the issue and not letting me and another Christian talk at all.

I guess this is what I should expect. What has everyone elses experiences been with the JW's?

:huh:

[Captain Ochre]

You're sticking to the right issue when dealing with JW's, imo: Christology.
Try to get the JW's to do the work expressing their view on the "I am" passages. If they give their view, it should open the door to hearing yours. My favorite point was to focus on the fact that Jesus was not created. Their justification for a created Christ is about as thin as it could get.
The JW's used to come around fairly often, but I think that I have been honorarily disfellowshiped, since they skip right over my place over the past six years. I have to flag them down when they go by, because they won't come to my door, and won't even leave periodicals on the doorstep any longer. I tried to use their own material wherever possible, for instance showing the way their translation committee editorialized the first chapter of Colossians.

They are good at controlling conversation, many of them. One lady used to come around and every time I'd pose her a tough question she'd give me an answer that took us from Adam to Armageddon. I insisted on some give-and-take, and I let them do most of the talking so long as I was allowed to interject. When they tried to talk over me, I shamed them out of it!
One more thing: JW guidelines typically call for witnessing to be done in pairs. The one doing the talking is training the other one, generally. Draw the less talkative JW into the conversation whenever possible, or at least direct your statements at him as well as the teacher.

The last thing that I tried before they cut me off permanently was a drawing of two circles, one of which encompassed all created things, and another that encompassed things that were not created. Collossians 1:9 was listed underneath. I challenged them to locate Jesus in the appropriate set.
More than a coincidence that they don't come by anymore? Could be.

[n0rstar]

When someone shows that they are not intreasted by either:

a) tryen to debate everything, sometimes goin way off topic to prove their right

-or-

b) they simply ask us not to come around anymore.

a Paper is filled out and dropped into the Territory box, the house is then filled according to the territory and is skipped, cause the party is "unintreasted" I beleave after 5 years, it is replaced, and then revisited (this is cause people tend to move, or have a change in heart)

I have not been out all that much, as I am just an Unbaptized Publisher; or as stated, I am the 2nd one in the back.

The goal is to normaly not get into deep debates when witnessing, cause it isn't proper. Rather when a question is asked, it is breifly summerized, usually with 2-3 scriptures.

Some members may tend to try and avoid a question, cause they don't know the answear, and would not want to state something just for the sake of given an answear. In this case normaly they will state that they don't know the answear to the question, and then request that they come back later with evidence supporting their belief.

Often enough, Pioneers, and Special Pioneers whom put in 70-120hrs a month, have seen most attempts to defuse their standings with the bible, and for see time bein wasted with lengthy debates that will eventually lead to both parties in their same position of belief.

The goal is to seek out the meek and humble of hearts in the ministry. Not to debate for hours on topics.

As for the [Ego Eimi] at John 8:58


Joh 8:58—“before Abraham came into existence, I have been”

Gr., ???? ??????µ ???????? ??? ??µ?

(prin A·bra·am´ ge·ne´sthai e·go´ ei·mi´)

The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such situation ??µ? (ei·mi´), which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8. (1984 Reference Bible p.1582)

the "?" represent the Greek transripts, but the forum doesn't support the font, or I am posting wrong.

In conclussion, when Jehovahs Witness's are out in the ministry, it isn't for long debates, and or Greek and Ancient Hebrew deciphering. I am sure that the number of Witness's that speak and can translate Greek and Ancient Hebrew is very few.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45874#post45874)
n0rstar:

When someone shows that they are not intreasted by either:

a) tryen to debate everything, sometimes goin way off topic to prove their right

-or-

b) they simply ask us not to come around anymore.


In contrast to that, I took the initiative in limiting the topic, and I go out of my way to emphasize what I have in common with JW's before we dig in (starting with the authority of the scriptures). A few of the Witnesses have been somewhat rude. One set up an appointment for a deeper discussion later in the week, then after he was three hours late for the appointment cancelled by phone because he had been assigned to teach elsewhere. I don't doubt that his excuse was truthful, but I have a strong suspicion that the reassignment was arranged by an JW elder (whom I had talked with months earlier) in order to get the guy off the hook.



The goal is to normaly not get into deep debates when witnessing, cause it isn't proper. Rather when a question is asked, it is breifly summerized, usually with 2-3 scriptures.


Why isn't it proper?
(answer below!)



Some members may tend to try and avoid a question, cause they don't know the answear, and would not want to state something just for the sake of given an answear. In this case normaly they will state that they don't know the answear to the question, and then request that they come back later with evidence supporting their belief.


Sometimes they answer out-of-step with the organization, which always makes things interesting.



Often enough, Pioneers, and Special Pioneers whom put in 70-120hrs a month, have seen most attempts to defuse their standings with the bible, and for see time bein wasted with lengthy debates that will eventually lead to both parties in their same position of belief.


Not to toot my own horn, but I'm fairly good at hitting the root of an issue, and I deliberately pick issues where the JW's have serious weaknesses, such as their Christology (John 1, Colossians 1), and their flip-flopping "new light".
To paraphrase Roger Daltrey:
"See the new light
same as the old light"



The goal is to seek out the meek and humble of hearts in the ministry. Not to debate for hours on topics.


Correct. The goal is to find people receptive to being taught JW doctrines. Challenges to JW orthodoxy are to be avoided, even when (as one JW admitted) I might be teaching them something that is true but hasn't been stamped with the organizational seal-of-approval as "new light".



In conclussion, when Jehovahs Witness's are out in the ministry, it isn't for long debates, and or Greek and Ancient Hebrew deciphering. I am sure that the number of Witness's that speak and can translate Greek and Ancient Hebrew is very few.

Because of my non-combative nature, the JW's were once upon a time willing to send their most mature believers to my home in order to resolve deeper issues. I am (was) able to convince them that I will follow where the truth leads me, and I always strove to present my position firmly yet respectfully.
So, I've got my Saturdays free, now.
:smile:

[n0rstar]

perhaps I was wrong in responding to your statement, when tryen to shed light on the actions the Witness's at the door, I did not intend for my response to be dissected. Rather, I intended to help those not knowing, understand why the actions that was taken, took place. As you said in a previous statement "I have to flag them down when they go by, because they won't come to my door, and won't even leave periodicals on the doorstep any longer. I tried to use their own material wherever possible, for instance showing the way their translation committee editorialized the first chapter of Colossians." I am first off glad that your so very zealous in your knowledge of the scriptures, and would like to stimulate your intelligence by having a conversation with those having knowledge of the bible as well. I to like to speak and debate with other religions, it helps me to better understand the bible, by indulging in an intellectual conversation about certin topics. However, there is bein humble and modest in this regaurd, and rude or abrupt; "Flagging" one down, or chasen after someone so you can down size their beleifs to some how uplift your faith isn't exaclty scriptual.



1 Corinthians 4:18_Some are puffed up as though I were in fact not coming to YOU. 19_But I will come to YOU shortly, if Jehovah wills, and I shall get to know, not the speech of those who are puffed up, but [their] power. 20_For the kingdom of God [lies] not in speech, but in power. 21_What do YOU want? Shall I come to YOU with a rod, or with love and mildness of spirit?


if you would like to ask me a few questions, my email is viewable, and I don't mind answearing questions to the best of my knowledge. If you care to know the ways of Jehovahs Witness's for personal intrest, I can abide by your questions. However, if you just want to prove your right, and superior to me and my belief, then I do not care to conversate. I did not join these forums to amuse others, I came to gain a better knowledge of the bible, and share with others, the point of view I acquired through diligent study, in turn, I like to hear other peoples point of view of the bible through their diligent study.

I apologize in advance, if any statments I aroused was insulting or rude, I hope that either or, will not be manifest through my post.

[spl_cadet]

My experience with them. (www.geocities.com/spl_cadet/cult/jw.html)

[Patroclus]

I am first off glad that your so very zealous in your knowledge of the scriptures, and would like to stimulate your intelligence by having a conversation with those having knowledge of the bible as well. I to like to speak and debate with other religions, it helps me to better understand the bible, by indulging in an intellectual conversation about certin topics. However, there is bein humble and modest in this regaurd, and rude or abrupt; "Flagging" one down, or chasen after someone so you can down size their beleifs to some how uplift your faith isn't exaclty scriptual.

You are looking at it from the wrong persspective here, Norstar. As it is one of your tennents to evagelize, even so, it is one of ours. The problem is that the JW faith and the mainline Christian faith are so diametrically opposed at their root that debate is inevitable. It is not a new debate by any means, going back to the council of Nicea, but it is one that many of us feel is necessary to take-up in this circumstance.

At the core of my belief, Jesus is the Son of God--is God. I want everbody to believe as I do. So, when you pass by our houses, consider the flag as an invitation to community. At least for me (because I do not speak for other people), it is not about the debate, but the sincere hope that you will believe as I--I know the opposite is your desire as well. So why avoid it?

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46409#post46409)
n0rstar:

perhaps I was wrong in responding to your statement, when tryen to shed light on the actions the Witness's at the door, I did not intend for my response to be dissected. Rather, I intended to help those not knowing, understand why the actions that was taken, took place. As you said in a previous statement "I have to flag them down when they go by, because they won't come to my door, and won't even leave periodicals on the doorstep any longer. I tried to use their own material wherever possible, for instance showing the way their translation committee editorialized the first chapter of Colossians." I am first off glad that your so very zealous in your knowledge of the scriptures, and would like to stimulate your intelligence by having a conversation with those having knowledge of the bible as well. I to like to speak and debate with other religions, it helps me to better understand the bible, by indulging in an intellectual conversation about certin topics. However, there is bein humble and modest in this regaurd, and rude or abrupt; "Flagging" one down, or chasen after someone so you can down size their beleifs to some how uplift your faith isn't exaclty scriptual.


Afaics, I don't talk to JW's in order to edify myself (maybe you know me better than I do, but then again maybe not).
Patroclus stole my thunder on this one.



if you would like to ask me a few questions, my email is viewable, and I don't mind answearing questions to the best of my knowledge. If you care to know the ways of Jehovahs Witness's for personal intrest, I can abide by your questions.


I know JW doctrines better than the average JW does. I've obtained an extensive collection of Watchtower publications (including the rare birthday register!) in which I've done extensive reading, and I do listen when visiting JW's talk.



However, if you just want to prove your right, and superior to me and my belief, then I do not care to conversate. I did not join these forums to amuse others, I came to gain a better knowledge of the bible, and share with others, the point of view I acquired through diligent study, in turn, I like to hear other peoples point of view of the bible through their diligent study.


Good for you--but why don't you just admit that I'm right? :wink:



I apologize in advance, if any statments I aroused was insulting or rude, I hope that either or, will not be manifest through my post.

I was just sharing my experience, some of which agreed with what you wrote (such as the purpose JW's have when they go door-to-door), and some of which did not.
I'm pretty sure that the only JW's who have thought me rude were the ones who expected me to pay for a copy of their Trinity publication. Afaics, it's not a donation if the payment is mandatory. Maybe they weren't familiar with the laws regarding such things. I'm sure that most JW's are.

[n0rstar]

Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open.

[Sher]

Capt'n, two quick questions ... Col 1:9 :huh:

(For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding)

I may be dense (and I am sure I am) but how does this show Christology? I am really missing this one after several reads.

And a really stupid one: What is afaics? ::blushes::

[Sher]

Today @ 12:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46676#post46676)
n0rstar:

Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open. Um... you do realize that the way you used this verse makes anyone reading it see it from the prespective of throwing our pearls before swine. I'm sure you had a point by posting it, but it appears to be a slam that turned against you.

[Jin-Roh]

The goal is to seek out the meek and humble of hearts in the ministry. Not to debate for hours on topics.

I was far from meek and humble before I got saved, but that does not mean that it was nobody's businesses to tell me about Jesus (thanks Alden).

I actually kind of put this together after the JW's left my house: They where attempting to justify their theology with their action, and where presuming that I myself did not do enough "action" and just "studied." It should be reminder to everyone, that we are saved by what we place our faith in, not by what we do.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46683#post46683)
SherBear:

Capt'n, two quick questions ... Col 1:9 :huh:

(For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding)


Excellent question. Make that Colossians 1:15. It was . . . uh . . . a typo or something. Huh-huh.
Okay, so it was just faulty memory. Can't remember my own phone # either.



I may be dense (and I am sure I am) but how does this show Christology? I am really missing this one after several reads.

And a really stupid one: What is afaics? ::blushes::

That one I can answer!
As Far As I Can See
Also expect to encounter
As Far As I Know (afaik)

I go slightly against convention by failing to capitalize Internet abbreviations.

[Patroclus]

Today @ 09:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46676#post46676)
n0rstar:

Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open.

In addition to what Sher has already said, what is the point in calling people dogs or swine. Whether you are thinking it or not, it is highly offensive. You could have just as easily said nothing, and saved yourself some credibility.

Check out this verse just six verses later:

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12).

This works for swining as well as for evangelizing. If you want to evangelize, you can expect us to counter-evangelize. Though, I would rather not call you a dog or swine--I just don't think those descriptions fit.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46717#post46717)
Captain Ochre:

Excellent question. Make that Colossians 1:15. It was . . . uh . . . a typo or something. Huh-huh.
Okay, so it was just faulty memory. Ah... :lol: That makes sense... I wasn't picking on you ... I thought you found something I missed.
Can't remember my own phone # either.Oh, me neither ... but how often do we call ourselves?
That one I can answer!
As Far As I Can See
Also expect to encounter
As Far As I Know (afaik):doh: I get it now! :idea:

::shakes blonde head :no: and goes to the store to buy some brown haircolor::

(artificial intelligence)

[Alden]

That's okay Sher,

I had to ask Patroclus what afaics was, so don't feel bad. It just means that we have more real-world conversations than internet ones.:tongue:

Jin-roh- Sure thing, love ya brother!:thumb:

[n0rstar]

Yesterday @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46687#post46687)
SherBear:

Um... you do realize that the way you used this verse makes anyone reading it see it from the prespective of throwing our pearls before swine. I'm sure you had a point by posting it, but it appears to be a slam that turned against you.


Yesterday @ 02:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46746#post46746)
Patroclus:



In addition to what Sher has already said, what is the point in calling people dogs or swine. Whether you are thinking it or not, it is highly offensive. You could have just as easily said nothing, and saved yourself some credibility.

Check out this verse just six verses later:

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12).

This works for swining as well as for evangelizing. If you want to evangelize, you can expect us to counter-evangelize. Though, I would rather not call you a dog or swine--I just don't think those descriptions fit.

My utmost of apologies, I tend to not act so rude or abrupt, I admit, it was rather rude of my posting that without the explanation behind my posting it. (very very very rare that I do that). Once again I apologies to anyone whom my Matthew 7:6 quote offended. This is and was my intended thought process to be displayed.


Matthew 7:1 “Stop judging that YOU may not be judged; 2_for with what judgment YOU are judging, YOU will be judged; and with the measure that YOU are measuring out, they will measure out to YOU. 3_Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? 4_Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? 5_Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye.

6_“Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open.

When witnessing, it is our duty to respect other peoples ideas, and beliefs. Hence, you won't hear an opening statement such as "Did you know Catholasism is wrong?" or "Did you know that Born again Christians celebrate pagan holidays?" or when we approach someone and they say along the lines of "Thank you, but I have my own church and pastor whom I go to with questions" we don't sit there and say "Well your church is wrong, and full of idoliters!" we simply say "Take this brouchure, if you get a chance, please look it over. Have a wonderful day." and then we depart.

You won't hear us judging or demanding that they listen to us, cause that is not how Jesus done it, “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones." James 4:5 and like the verse at 1Corinthians 4:21 we should be of mild spirit and humble when addressing people with the Kingdom Message.

With arogant statements such as


I know JW doctrines better than the average JW does. I've obtained an extensive collection of Watchtower publications (including the rare birthday register!) in which I've done extensive reading, and I do listen when visiting JW's talk


Good for you--but why don't you just admit that I'm right? :wink:

I would not want to listen to anything else he has to say, cause he is not mild spirited, or humble. Neither would I give the time of day to someone whom just wants to talk trash on my beleifs, or the past of which. All orginized religion has its faults, to expect any 1 religion to be the PERFECT one, is a paradox. For the simple reason, we are imperfect. Jehovahs Witness's has had their faults in teachings, but has always remained humble, and will openly admit their errors. Even in the 1968 8/15 WatchTower, in one of the partially quoted paragraphs found out: http://www.geocities.com/spl_cadet/cult/jw.html

This is the whole paragraph. And the whole objective of the chronology statement made at that website in corrisponding with the Watch Tower objective, is totaly diffrent.


Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.

but thats a totaly diffrent topic.

When I give my insight on the Jehovahs WItness orginization, I tend for it to be general knowledge - so they can see things in another point of view. If you want to sit here, and persecute our (Jehovahs Witness's) Beliefs, and or our tendencys (past or present), then I say to you, be aware of your rafter, as I will with mine.

[ollie]

"And they were called Christians first at Antioch."
Acts 11:26

God's people, the ekklesia, do not wear the name "Jehovah's Witnesses". They are just Christians.

[ollie]

Yesterday @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46701#post46701)
Jin-Roh:



I was far from meek and humble before I got saved, but that does not mean that it was nobody's businesses to tell me about Jesus (thanks Alden).

I actually kind of put this together after the JW's left my house: They where attempting to justify their theology with their action, and where presuming that I myself did not do enough "action" and just "studied." It should be reminder to everyone, that we are saved by what we place our faith in, not by what we do.
However Christ did say "GO, teach all nations". Is that not an action? However, this action is not what saves the one performing the action, but perhaps the receiver of the action, through hearing, believing and obeying.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47962#post47962)
n0rstar:

You won't hear us judging or demanding that they listen to us, cause that is not how Jesus done it, “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones." James 4:5 and like the verse at 1Corinthians 4:21 we should be of mild spirit and humble when addressing people with the Kingdom Message.


What happens if you left literature with a Roman Catholic and they happen to read the Organization's excoriation of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance? You're not contradicting their beliefs because you left a printed tract instead of speaking up???



With arogant statements such as

"I know JW doctrines better than the average JW does. I've obtained an extensive collection of Watchtower publications (including the rare birthday register!) in which I've done extensive reading, and I do listen when visiting JW's talk ”


Hmm? And what's arrogant about that? JW's study from their printed materials. If I'm reading the same thing and covering a greater chronological swath than does the average JW, then what complaint do you have with my statement? Is it arrogant to have said it if I happen to be correct?
Now, if I'd claimed to know JW doctrine better than 90% of JW's then the claim that I was arrogant might have some force to it.



“ Good for you--but why don't you just admit that I'm right? :wink: ”

So--you're new to emoticons, eh?



I would not want to listen to anything else he has to say, cause he is not mild spirited, or humble.


What's the matter? Are you too proud to listen to someone who is not mild-spirited or humble? :smile:



Neither would I give the time of day to someone whom just wants to talk trash on my beleifs, or the past of which.


If that's what you think I do, then you're not as psychic as The Amazing Criswell. Are the dozens of JW's who have spent upwards of an hour talking to me during their prime door-to-door activity simply less discerning than you are?



All orginized religion has its faults, to expect any 1 religion to be the PERFECT one, is a paradox. For the simple reason, we are imperfect. Jehovahs Witness's has had their faults in teachings, but has always remained humble, and will openly admit their errors.


Come, now. Be honest. They're "humble" in a "We're true Christians and you're not." kind of way.
"Why do true Christians not celebrate Christmas, Easter, or birthdays?
http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_11.htm
"No, the nations and churches of Christendom were not, and are not, Christian. They are not God's servants."
http://www.watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm
"So true Christians will not accept a blood transfusion."
http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_12.htm

Would you listen to an organization that would make such arrogant statements even while they admit that they are wrong about things?
"Our wrongness is not as 'their wrongness."

IMO, the JW's admit error for the primary purpose of appearing humble (on behalf of the Organization). They're not going to want to delve into what it means for "God's visible organization" to teach doctrine X, then abandon doctrine X, and then re-adopt doctrine X.



When I give my insight on the Jehovahs WItness orginization, I tend for it to be general knowledge - so they can see things in another point of view. If you want to sit here, and persecute our (Jehovahs Witness's) Beliefs, and or our tendencys (past or present), then I say to you, be aware of your rafter, as I will with mine.

Dude, we're here in TWeb "persecuting" one another's beliefs all the time: Dispensationalists against non-dispensationalists, atheists against theists--you name it.
JW's don't get a free pass, sorry.

[Jin-Roh]

n0rstar fails to understnad that there is a diffrence between disagreement and persecution.

[Woman]

Jin-Roh:

They where attempting to justify their theology with their action, and where presuming that I myself did not do enough "action" and just "studied." It should be reminder to everyone, that we are saved by what we place our faith in, not by what we do.

Although I know that most Christians believe that you don't do works to get saved, I think most agree that once saved, the works flow naturally. Would you agree with this?

I ask you because you mentioned a time before you were saved.

[Patroclus]

I think most agree that once saved, the works flow naturally. Would you agree with this?

While they may not be natural, I agree that they should be manifested upon belief.

[Jin-Roh]

Woman, I'm not actually sure what you're implying.

(man that just comes out bad. As in "Hey woman, make me a sandwich")

[Patroclus]

I think she is referring to the more modern translation of "Faith without works is dead." Though, RI would have some words concerning that--I completely disagree with him however.

P.S. To be properly demeaning, I suggest: "Woman, fix me a samich."

[Woman]

**building two huge samiches, piled high with cold-cuts and trimmings**


**taking careful aim**


:yipee:

Jin-Roh - I was referring to the belief common in Christianity and in other religions too, as well as Buddhism, that while good works will not not cause you to receive the Holy Ghost (or become enlightened) that once you have been saved (or awakened) the good works will manifest in you, because you are unable to desire anything less. In other words, the actions follow the belief....Man. :rofl:

[Patroclus]

once you have been saved (or awakened) the good works will manifest in you, because you are unable to desire anything less. In other words, the actions follow the belief

This would involve the removal of personal will. While, as Christians, we are supposed to relinquish our individual wills unto God, we are not rendered unable to maintain carnal desires. However, the presence of carnal, or sinful, desires in a believer suggests that there is a deeper problem in that person that needs to be dealt with. The spiritual difference after belief is that those sinful desires are no longer the driving force within the person, though they may crop up from time to time.

[Jin-Roh]

Yesterday @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48989#post48989)
Woman:

**building two huge samiches, piled high with cold-cuts and trimmings**


**taking careful aim**


:yipee:

Jin-Roh - I was referring to the belief common in Christianity and in other religions too, as well as Buddhism, that while good works will not not cause you to receive the Holy Ghost (or become enlightened) that once you have been saved (or awakened) the good works will manifest in you, because you are unable to desire anything less. In other words, the actions follow the belief....Man. :rofl:


Okay that's kind of what I thought.
Still the diffrence remains. If I'm a Buddhist, I may be still be enlightened in this life, but if I'm getting to nirvana, I'm still getting there pretty much on my own. JW's, in contrast with Christains, believe that they have to earn their way to heaven.

(Thanks for the samich)
http://www.rocketsky.net/~mysmilies/contrib/constrector/eatchicken.gif

[n0rstar]

03-29-2003 @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47997#post47997)
Captain Ochre:



What happens if you left literature with a Roman Catholic and they happen to read the Organization's excoriation of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance? You're not contradicting their beliefs because you left a printed tract instead of speaking up???



Hmm? And what's arrogant about that? JW's study from their printed materials. If I'm reading the same thing and covering a greater chronological swath than does the average JW, then what complaint do you have with my statement? Is it arrogant to have said it if I happen to be correct?
Now, if I'd claimed to know JW doctrine better than 90% of JW's then the claim that I was arrogant might have some force to it.



So--you're new to emoticons, eh?



What's the matter? Are you too proud to listen to someone who is not mild-spirited or humble? :smile:



If that's what you think I do, then you're not as psychic as The Amazing Criswell. Are the dozens of JW's who have spent upwards of an hour talking to me during their prime door-to-door activity simply less discerning than you are?



Come, now. Be honest. They're "humble" in a "We're true Christians and you're not." kind of way.
"Why do true Christians not celebrate Christmas, Easter, or birthdays?
http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_11.htm
"No, the nations and churches of Christendom were not, and are not, Christian. They are not God's servants."
http://www.watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm
"So true Christians will not accept a blood transfusion."
http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_12.htm

Would you listen to an organization that would make such arrogant statements even while they admit that they are wrong about things?
"Our wrongness is not as 'their wrongness."

IMO, the JW's admit error for the primary purpose of appearing humble (on behalf of the Organization). They're not going to want to delve into what it means for "God's visible organization" to teach doctrine X, then abandon doctrine X, and then re-adopt doctrine X.



Dude, we're here in TWeb "persecuting" one another's beliefs all the time: Dispensationalists against non-dispensationalists, atheists against theists--you name it.
JW's don't get a free pass, sorry.

:ahem:

[mom3]

Last summer I was at a friend's house when 2 JW ladies came to the door; one about 19, the other 50ish. She invited them in and we talked about 30 min. making an appointment for the following Weds. The next week 2 ladies( one the same one different came. My friend and I had been over their material about 6 hours the day before and thought we were prepared. We agreed we weren't there to make our points but to love them. We ended up taking 5 weeks(about 10 hours total) plus spending hours studying together the day before each visit. We too tried to keep the focus on the deity of Christ but as much as possible we used their own translation. We prayed a lot for the woman and our attitudes etc.
Basically it ended when they concluded that we were set in our position. We took the time to find out about who they were(family, work) and shared ourselves with them. The first half hour was always just chit-chat. 5 different ladies came altogether(tag-teaming :smile: ?) The whole time we definately felt spiritual warfare going on so we figured we were on the right track.
My prayer ever since has been that more and more Christians would educate themselves and open the door to invite them in and love them in Jesus name.

[Captain Ochre]

Last summer I was at a friend's house when 2 JW ladies came to the door; one about 19, the other 50ish. She invited them in and we talked about 30 min. making an appointment for the following Weds. The next week 2 ladies( one the same one different came. My friend and I had been over their material about 6 hours the day before and thought we were prepared. We agreed we weren't there to make our points but to love them. We ended up taking 5 weeks(about 10 hours total) plus spending hours studying together the day before each visit. We too tried to keep the focus on the deity of Christ but as much as possible we used their own translation. We prayed a lot for the woman and our attitudes etc.
Basically it ended when they concluded that we were set in our position. We took the time to find out about who they were(family, work) and shared ourselves with them. The first half hour was always just chit-chat. 5 different ladies came altogether(tag-teaming :smile: ?) The whole time we definately felt spiritual warfare going on so we figured we were on the right track.
My prayer ever since has been that more and more Christians would educate themselves and open the door to invite them in and love them in Jesus name.

I agree.
Many are taught not to show hospitality to those who carry a different gospel, but it seems to me that the cultural context is the key to that verse. Hospitality meant stuff like helping them on their way, giving them a place to sleep--stuff like that, afaics.
Contending for the faith--giving good explanations for why we believe as we do--is a different matter. One can be hospitable in sharing without aiding the cause of enemy doctrines.

[NonTrinitarian]

As a JW, I agree with both Mom and Capt. Ochre. We are commanded make a defense of our faith but to do so with a mild temper and deep respect. (1 Peter 3:15).

Mom, different people showing up isn't 'tag teaming.' Different JW's go out at different times. Whatever their schedule happens to be for the week. Even if two do meet at the same time each week, they usually will pair up differently just to be with different ones. Usually the person who made initial contact will always be one of the visitors (because it's that persons call) but we work with different ones all the time just so we can enjoy different faces. I'm glad you all had a pleasant conversation with us.

[mom3]

As a JW, I agree with both Mom and Capt. Ochre. We are commanded make a defense of our faith but to do so with a mild temper and deep respect. (1 Peter 3:15).

Mom, different people showing up isn't 'tag teaming.' Different JW's go out at different times. Whatever their schedule happens to be for the week. Even if two do meet at the same time each week, they usually will pair up differently just to be with different ones. Usually the person who made initial contact will always be one of the visitors (because it's that persons call) but we work with different ones all the time just so we can enjoy different faces. I'm glad you all had a pleasant conversation with us.NonTrin- I'm glad you weren't affended by the tag-teaming remark. It was a poor attempt at humor at JW expense. I know it wasn't really tag-teaming.The young girl that was there the first time we figured was in training and probably wouldn't be back. The second time the older lady brought her best friend who was also more literate in her JW knowledge. They came 3 out of the five times except 1 time when one of them had some business out of town.
I have a question for you that's a little off the thread subject. I realize that JW's don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Would you please tell me what the JW's say about the passage in Luke 24:36-43. This is a question the ladies never answered for me. Thanks.:eek: (just attempting humor again)

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi Mom3,

In Luke 24, Jesus appears to the disciples. They freak out because they think they are seeing a spirit or demon of some type. Jesus reassures them that he is not. He then offers them the chance to touch him and feel that he is in a fleshly body.

I can see why we would read this account and think Jesus was raised in his fleshly body. But this account does not really prove such a point. What it proves is that Jesus had a fleshly body when he appeared to them. Spirit beings did have the ability to put on fleshly bodies, though I don’t believe they do now. For instance, in the days of Noah, the angels (bad ones) forsook their positions in heaven and came to the earth and had relations with women, bearing them offspring. Obviously these angels had to materialize into a fleshly body to do such. The angels that appeared to Abraham sat down and had a meal with him. But they were angels. Angels are spirit creatures. So these angels had to materialize into a fleshly body in order to eat with Abraham. Jacob wrestled an angel who also had materialized into a fleshly body. But most people probably would agree that these angels do not have a material body now in heaven.

In the same way, Jesus could have materialized into a fleshly body before his disciples. It appears he materialized into different bodies at different times. Note the account at John 21:1-12. In verse one it reads, "After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples…but he made the manifestation in this way." This suggests Jesus was manifesting himself to his disciples in different ways, not always appearing in the same body. Then Jesus performs a miracle and the disciples rush to the shore to see the man. When they get to the shore, the account continues: "Come, take your breakfast." Not one of the disciples had the courage to inquire of him: "Who are you?" because they knew it was the Lord." (John 21:12)

Now consider verse 12 in detail. John says that none of them had the courage to inquire of the man as to whether or not he was Jesus. We must ask ourselves why they would even WONDER about inquiring if the man was Jesus, if he was in the same body with the same appearance that the disciples had known for three years. In fact, they had already seen the resurrected Jesus just a few days before this account! If Jesus had the same appearance that he had just a few days earlier when he appeared before them they would not have been ‘fearful’ to inquire whether or not the man was Jesus and it would have been pointless for John to even mention the whole episode in that verse. It seems John was letting us know that Jesus was in a different body, even from his appearance to them just a few days earlier. (See also Luke 24:15,16, 31 and what finally caused them to recognize Jesus in verse 35. See also John 20:14) In another account we see that Jesus appeared in the middle of a room even though the door was locked. Even that suggests that he materialized into a fleshly body after he came into the room. (see John 20:26)

I hope that helps you to understand why we do not think Luke 24 proves Jesus has a physical body in heaven. Not that this proves he does not, it simply shows that it doesn’t prove he does.

PS-I thought the door smiley was pretty funny.

[mom3]

I'd like to pose a new thread on this forum using the subject we're discussing but it might involve some JW bashing. Are you up for that, non-trin?

[NonTrinitarian]

I don't mind starting another thread. But I don't tolerate bashing. We can disagree politely but if someone starts attacking me, I put them on ignore.

[barryrob]

(JW is short for Jehovah Witness if you don't know)

Some of them came to my door just a few minutes ago. I sat them down and we started comparing Scriptures. I pointed out that my NIV was very close to their bible.

The discussion went sour. When I starting bringing up translation issues I was "digging to deep into it." When I brought up the Ego Eimi (John 8:58) statements they must've seen where I was going becuase they took over the conversation, talking about the great commision and what not, and left the my house.

My only other experience with them recently was at a starbucks. I also brought up the Ego Eimi statements and they just kept dodging the issue and not letting me and another Christian talk at all.

I guess this is what I should expect. What has everyone elses experiences been with the JW's?

:huh:

I am a Jehovah's Christian Witness. I conection with John 8:58 perhaps we could start here:-





"prin 'Abraam genesqai egw eimi 'before Abraham came into existence, I existed."-Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 United Bible Societies p.158





"I am from before Abraham was born."-The New Testament by Richmond Lattimore





"I have existed before Abraham was born"-James Moffatt 1948 (Impression)





"I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."-The Original N. T. by Hugh J. Schonfield 1985





"Truly truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."-The N. T. by Richmond Lattimore





"I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!"-Edger J. Goodspeed 1935 copyright





"Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’"-Chas. Williams’ The New Testament.





"He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been." -A. S. Lewis’ "The Four Gospels" According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest.





"‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’"-The Twentieth Century New Testament.





"Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was."-G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament.





"Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was."-Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament.





"Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’"-F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German).





"Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’"-C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German).





"Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’"-Nácar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish).




"I have been" (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form."-F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form.

"The absloute truth is that I was in existance before Abraham was ever born!"-The Living Bible.





"Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"-New Living Translation 1997





"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly I tell you: before Abraham was born, I have already been."-The Unvarnished N.T. translated by Andy Gaus 1991





"Jesus said to them, "Mark my words and make no mistake: before Abraham himself was born, I already have being.""-'The Four Gospels' by Norman Marrow p.171





'The Companion Bible' has the following marginal note about the phrase "I am" on page 1540 as found in John 8:58, " 58 was = came into existence : i. e. was born. 1 am."





The verse that John 8:58 is said to be a reference to is:-





N.W.T. ftn. on Exodus 3:14 reads:-


"I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." Heb., %ç³È 9æv %ç³È (´Eh·yeh' ´Asher' ´Eh·yeh'), God’s own self-designation; Leeser, "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE"; Rotherham, "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Gr., E·go' ei·mi ho on, "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One"; Lat., e'go sum qui sum, "I am Who I am." ´Eh·yeh' comes from the Heb. verb ha·yah', "become; prove to be." Here ´Eh·yeh' is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Gen 2:4 ftn, "Jehovah," where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha·wah' appears in the divine name.





Other places in the Christian Greek texts (N.T.) of the Bible were the


Greek word eimi, eimi, appears and is translated other than 'I' or 'am' or 'I am'.

Luke 19:22 K.J.V. "And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was* (Gk. eimi, Literally "am" int.) an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:"-‘Greek to English Interliner N.T. K.J.V’. by George Ricker Berry

John 14:9 K.J.V. "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been* (Gk. eimi, Literally "am I" int.) so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"-‘Greek to English Interliner N.T. K.J.V’. by George Ricker Berry




Let me know your views please if you would like to do that?

[ollie]

KJV:
John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

New World:

John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

The question here arises. If Christ as the word was a God, which one? Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him. So now we have another god in the NWT, "a god".


KJV:
John 1:14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

New World:
John 1:14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he actually

So a god becomes flesh according to NWT.

KJV:
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said,

New World:

Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

3 And God proceeded to say:

So the NWT is telling us we have "a god" as the word seperate from God's word spoken in the beginning.

Ollie

[{Tim}]

Just a quick thought on one topic...

Now consider verse 12 in detail. John says that none of them had the courage to inquire of the man as to whether or not he was Jesus. We must ask ourselves why they would even WONDER about inquiring if the man was Jesus, if he was in the same body with the same appearance that the disciples had known for three years. In fact, they had already seen the resurrected Jesus just a few days before this account!What do you think of the idea that the disciples were still not entirely sure of what was going on, a bit stressed by the situation in general -- so they "know it is the Lord", but maybe there's the smallest amount of doubt still -- but they're afraid to ask. So He may have the same body, and they still were only "99% certain" that it was really Him, just because of all the really unusual events that had been happening.

Although, I actually think that when/if Jesus was physically raised, he need not have been raised with the same body anyway, but with a glorified body, which could have been different from the Jesus they had spent three years with.

Anyway, that's just what I thought when I read that bit. :smile:

Tim

[NonTrinitarian]

Just a quick thought on one topic...
What do you think of the idea that the disciples were still not entirely sure of what was going on, a bit stressed by the situation in general -- so they "know it is the Lord", but maybe there's the smallest amount of doubt still -- but they're afraid to ask. So He may have the same body, and they still were only "99% certain" that it was really Him, just because of all the really unusual events that had been happening.

Although, I actually think that when/if Jesus was physically raised, he need not have been raised with the same body anyway, but with a glorified body, which could have been different from the Jesus they had spent three years with.

Anyway, that's just what I thought when I read that bit. :smile:

TimHi Tim,
Good question and it would have more merrit if this was the first time the disciples had seen the risen Lord. However, it was not. Most of them had seen him at least twice before this incident. Thomas may have only seen him once before this incident but he got to touch him during that incident so I'm sure he had a decent look at him. This seems to suggest that Jesus appeared in a different body from the other two recorded times which happened before this incident.

[NonTrinitarian]

KJV:
John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

New World:

John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

The question here arises. If Christ as the word was a God, which one? Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him. So now we have another god in the NWT, "a god".


KJV:
John 1:14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

New World:
John 1:14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he actually

So a god becomes flesh according to NWT.

KJV:
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said,

New World:

Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

3 And God proceeded to say:

So the NWT is telling us we have "a god" as the word seperate from God's word spoken in the beginning.

Ollie
So you think no one else can be called a "god" except Almighty God Jehovah?

[barryrob]

KJV:
John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

New World:

John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

The question here arises. If Christ as the word was a God, which one? Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him. So now we have another god in the NWT, "a god".


KJV:
John 1:14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

New World:
John 1:14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he actually

So a god becomes flesh according to NWT.

KJV:
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said,

New World:

Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

3 And God proceeded to say:

So the NWT is telling us we have "a god" as the word seperate from God's word spoken in the beginning.

OllieI a word Yes. Many other think along like lines:-






VARIOUS OTHER RENDERINGS OF JOHN 1:1 TAKEN OF THE W.W.W.









Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: "and the Word was a divine being."

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."

21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."

Buzzard/Hunting "In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God’s Wisdom" (Pro. 8:22-30)

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 "III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"


So we are not on our own in this view. I would like to hear your thoughts?

BarrRob

[barryrob]

The question here arises. If Christ as the word was a God, which one? Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him. So now we have another god in the NWT, "a god".


The scriptures do say that there are other gods:-


Examples in the Holy Bible where Humans, Angels, Satan and Demons etc. are referred to as being god(s)





Other gods in the Holy Bible





To most European peoples when "God" (Hebrew. el, eloah, elohim; LXX & N.T. Greek. Theos, theos), as a common noun, is mentioned we naturally assume that one is talking about The One and Only Almighty God of the Bible, which to the English mind this is the case in most instances, but is that the same in the near eastern cultures where the Bible was inspired for those Near Eastern Orientals thus enabling them to come to a knowledge of the true God among so many polytheistic nations which surrounded the people God chose because of the faith of Abraham. The following material is for the express purpose to help us to acquire a more extensive understanding of what the term/noun God in the Holy Scriptures which in the first instance was meant to the near Eastern cultures -distinctively the Israelites- thus improving our understanding of God's communications to mankind. We will now ask the question when God is mentioned in the Bible does it always refer to The Almighty? The publication entitled 'Insight on the Scriptures' Vol.-1 p.968 by the W.B.T.S. sheds some light on the above question:





"God - Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, probably meaning "Mighty One; Strong One." (Gen 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning "God Is Salvation") and Michael ("Who Is Like God?"). In some places ´El appears with the definite article (ha·´El', literally, "the God") with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.—Gen 46:3; 2 Sam 22:31





and the Hebrew from Srtong's No. "0430 'elohiym {el-o-heem'} plural of 0433; TWOT - 93c; n m p

AV - God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606

1) (plural)

1a) rulers, judges

1b) divine ones

1c) angels

1d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

2a) god, goddess

2b) godlike one

2c) works or special possessions of God

2d) the (true) God

2e) God."





Greek Strong's No. "2316 theos {theh'-os} of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; TDNT - 3:65,322; n m

AV - God 1320, god 13, godly 3, God-ward + 4214 2, misc 5; 1343

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity* *Jehovah's Christian Witnesses belief as based on the

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity* Holy Scriptures show these to be incorrect!

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity*

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity*

3) spoken of the only and true God

3a) refers to the things of God

3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4a) God's representative or viceregent

4a1) of magistrates and judges."





According to the above, the term "God" can be correctly applied to lesser beings in addition to the person of Jehovah God and they can be called God or god(s) [like] whether true or false apart from Almighty God himself, it is into this category Jesus Christ belongs, let us consider some further scholastic and theological comments:-





"OT words for God. A cluster of three words, possibly from the same ancient root, are translated "God" of "god" in the NIV and NASB. These are el, eloah, elohim. Each is a generic terms, meaning "god" or "mighty one." Normally when one of these words occur in the OT, it designates either the true God or something the pagan nations viewed as a god. In only a few instances are these words used of angels or mighty human beings."-Expository Dictionary of the Bible by L.O. Richards p.312-313


also


"El and Elohim are from the earliest times the general names applied to the spirits or demons associated in popular belief with certain localities or natural objects such as trees, wells, rocks, stones, etc., Some of these numerous vague spirits attained in the course of time to a more definitely personal quality, advancing as the protective spirits of places and tribes to the stage of deity. An instructive passage is Gen. 33.20, 'And he [Jacob] erected there an alter and called it El-elohe-Israel'. El is here no longer a mere appellative, but has become a proper name, the name of the God of Israel, while at the same time it is the name of the alter itself, closely associated with the stone (cf. Gen. 28.18f) of which the alter consists."-A Theologial Word Book of the Bible Ed. by A. Richardson D.D. p.94-94





Further on Genesis 30:20 from 'Insight on the Scriptures' Vol.-1 p.980 by the W.B.T.S.:-





"GOD THE GOD OF ISRAEL. The name given by Jacob to the first altar that he built after he returned from Haran. As a result of his encounter at Peniel with the angel of Jehovah, Jacob was given the name Israel, and after a peaceable meeting with his brother Esau, he dwelt at Succoth and then Shechem. Here he acquired a tract of land from the sons of Hamor and pitched his tent upon it. (Gen 32:24-30; 33:1-4, 17-19) "After that he set up there an altar and called it God the God of Israel," or "God Is the God of Israel." (Gen 33:20) In identifying himself by his newly given name Israel with the name of the altar, Jacob indicated his acceptance and appreciation of that name and of God’s guiding him safely back into the Promised Land. The expression occurs only once in the Scriptures."

In simple terms God is God, to the European mind, but not so the case to the Near Eastern mind (as the Scriptures where prepared for their culture) there is a lot more involved, which we should take into consideration when contemplating the Scriptures, as the above shows, many things are called God, god, gods etc. in the Bible so having the right prospective of this will help us to understand why Jesus can be "a god" (or divine one) and just as true but with out being The Almighty God.





Humans are referred to as "God" or "god".




Exodus 4:16 "And he* must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you** will serve as God*** to him*."


*Aaron; **Moses; ***N.W.T. (ftn) "As God." Heb., le´·lo·him', pl.; Gr., the·on'; Lat., De'um."

Exodus 7:1 "Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you God* to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

*N.W.T. "(ftn.) "God." Heb., ´elo·him'; Gr., the·on'; Latin, De'um."

N.I.V. Study Bible. Comment on Ex 7:1 (and Ex 4:16).

"As God transmits his word through his prophets to his people, so Moses will transmit God's message through Aaron to pharaoh. The prophet's task was to speak God's word on God's behalf. He was God's "mouth" (4:15-16)."

Jesus Christ is the prophet ("The Word") for Jehovah, like Moses (and much more), whom was a prophetic picture of The Christ, as Moses was the godlike mediator of the Law Covenant, whereas Jesus is the godlike Mediator (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 12:24) of the New Covenant as Deuteronomy 18:15 reads "A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you—to him YOU people should listen." See John 1:45; 6:14; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37.


Acts 12:21-22 "But on a set day Herod clothed himself with royal raiment and sat down upon the judgment seat and began giving them a public address. In turn the assembled people began shouting: "A god’s (Gk. qeou) voice, and not a man’s!""





Acts 14:11-12 "And the crowds, seeing what Paul had done, raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian tongue: "The gods (Gk. qeoi) have become like humans and have come down to us!" And they went calling Bar'na·bas Zeus, but Paul Her'mes, since he was the one taking the lead in speaking."

Psalms 82:1-8 "God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One*; In the middle of the gods** he judges: "How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy. To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice. Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one; Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them]." They have not known, and they do not understand; In darkness they keep walking about; All the foundations of the earth are made to totter. "I myself have said, 'YOU are gods***, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High. . . ."


*N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "God." Heb., ´El; LXXVg, "gods"; Sy, "angels.""


**N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "godlike ones." Heb., ´elo·him'; LXXVgc, "gods"; Sy, "angels"; T, "judges.""


***N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "godlike ones." Heb., ´elo·him'; Gr., the·oi'; Syr., da´·la·hin; Lat., di'i; T, like angels."



N.I.V. Study Bible. Comment on Ps 82:6.

"I said. Those who rule (or judge) do so by God's appointment (see 2:7 ; Isa 44:28) and thus they are his representatives- whether they acknowledge him or not (see Ex 9:16; Jer 27:6; Da 2:21; 4:17.32; 5:18; Jn 17:11; Ro 13:1). gods. See note on v. 1*. sons of. See note on v, 1, Most High. See note on Ge 14:19."

*"An early rabbinic interpretation (see Jn 10:35-35) understanding the "gods" (vv. 1,6) to be unjust rulers and judges in Israel, of whom there were many . . . ."

K.J.V. Companion Bible, Ps 82:1

**"gods Elohim: used of earthly judges as representing Him. Cp. Ex. 21.6; 22.8, 9, 28 (quoted in Acts 23.5.). Hence Moses is so spoken of (Ex. 7. 1). (it is used also of idols as representing even a false god.) See John 10. 34, 35."

"Verse 6. Ye are gods — Or, with the prefix of k ke, the particle of similitude, µyhlak keelohim, "like God." Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High."-Clarke's Commentary OT, Vol. 3 Job - Song of Solomon by Adam Clarke p.1084




Psalm 82:6

"I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

If God can call humans "gods" by his own word and these are also "sons" and as it is there are many of them as it refers to them in the plural.

It is clear that Jesus is "God’s Son" by his own admission (John 10:36), also God’s (Heb 1:5), and is one of many such, as the Scriptures make clear (excepting he is a very special one).

As God’s "sons" can be also be called "gods" by God himself (as above) and being as Jesus or "The Word," who is God’s "son" (John 1:14), can then, by context and connection, be correctly referred to as "a god" or one of the many of God’s "sons" called "gods" human or otherwise!



Cross-ref : Psalm 82:1, 6

John 10:33-35 "The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself [a] god (Gk. qeon)." Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods" (Gk. Qeoi) If he called 'gods' (Gk. qeouV ) those against whom the word of God (Gk. qeou) came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified," [In the next verses, 36, Jesus say he is "God's Son"; not God himself]




also:-


1 Corinthians 8:5-6 For even though there are those who are 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, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.



According to the Bible. I would like to hear your views.

BarryRob

[ollie]

The question here arises. If Christ as the word was a God, which one? Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him. So now we have another god in the NWT, "a god".


The scriptures do say that there are other gods:-


Examples in the Holy Bible where Humans, Angels, Satan and Demons etc. are referred to as being god(s)





Other gods in the Holy Bible





To most European peoples when "God" (Hebrew. el, eloah, elohim; LXX & N.T. Greek. Theos, theos), as a common noun, is mentioned we naturally assume that one is talking about The One and Only Almighty God of the Bible, which to the English mind this is the case in most instances, but is that the same in the near eastern cultures where the Bible was inspired for those Near Eastern Orientals thus enabling them to come to a knowledge of the true God among so many polytheistic nations which surrounded the people God chose because of the faith of Abraham. The following material is for the express purpose to help us to acquire a more extensive understanding of what the term/noun God in the Holy Scriptures which in the first instance was meant to the near Eastern cultures -distinctively the Israelites- thus improving our understanding of God's communications to mankind. We will now ask the question when God is mentioned in the Bible does it always refer to The Almighty? The publication entitled 'Insight on the Scriptures' Vol.-1 p.968 by the W.B.T.S. sheds some light on the above question:





"God - Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, probably meaning "Mighty One; Strong One." (Gen 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning "God Is Salvation") and Michael ("Who Is Like God?"). In some places ´El appears with the definite article (ha·´El', literally, "the God") with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.—Gen 46:3; 2 Sam 22:31





and the Hebrew from Srtong's No. "0430 'elohiym {el-o-heem'} plural of 0433; TWOT - 93c; n m p

AV - God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606

1) (plural)

1a) rulers, judges

1b) divine ones

1c) angels

1d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

2a) god, goddess

2b) godlike one

2c) works or special possessions of God

2d) the (true) God

2e) God."





Greek Strong's No. "2316 theos {theh'-os} of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; TDNT - 3:65,322; n m

AV - God 1320, god 13, godly 3, God-ward + 4214 2, misc 5; 1343

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity* *Jehovah's Christian Witnesses belief as based on the

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity* Holy Scriptures show these to be incorrect!

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity*

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity*

3) spoken of the only and true God

3a) refers to the things of God

3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4a) God's representative or viceregent

4a1) of magistrates and judges."





According to the above, the term "God" can be correctly applied to lesser beings in addition to the person of Jehovah God and they can be called God or god(s) [like] whether true or false apart from Almighty God himself, it is into this category Jesus Christ belongs, let us consider some further scholastic and theological comments:-





"OT words for God. A cluster of three words, possibly from the same ancient root, are translated "God" of "god" in the NIV and NASB. These are el, eloah, elohim. Each is a generic terms, meaning "god" or "mighty one." Normally when one of these words occur in the OT, it designates either the true God or something the pagan nations viewed as a god. In only a few instances are these words used of angels or mighty human beings."-Expository Dictionary of the Bible by L.O. Richards p.312-313


also


"El and Elohim are from the earliest times the general names applied to the spirits or demons associated in popular belief with certain localities or natural objects such as trees, wells, rocks, stones, etc., Some of these numerous vague spirits attained in the course of time to a more definitely personal quality, advancing as the protective spirits of places and tribes to the stage of deity. An instructive passage is Gen. 33.20, 'And he [Jacob] erected there an alter and called it El-elohe-Israel'. El is here no longer a mere appellative, but has become a proper name, the name of the God of Israel, while at the same time it is the name of the alter itself, closely associated with the stone (cf. Gen. 28.18f) of which the alter consists."-A Theologial Word Book of the Bible Ed. by A. Richardson D.D. p.94-94





Further on Genesis 30:20 from 'Insight on the Scriptures' Vol.-1 p.980 by the W.B.T.S.:-





"GOD THE GOD OF ISRAEL. The name given by Jacob to the first altar that he built after he returned from Haran. As a result of his encounter at Peniel with the angel of Jehovah, Jacob was given the name Israel, and after a peaceable meeting with his brother Esau, he dwelt at Succoth and then Shechem. Here he acquired a tract of land from the sons of Hamor and pitched his tent upon it. (Gen 32:24-30; 33:1-4, 17-19) "After that he set up there an altar and called it God the God of Israel," or "God Is the God of Israel." (Gen 33:20) In identifying himself by his newly given name Israel with the name of the altar, Jacob indicated his acceptance and appreciation of that name and of God’s guiding him safely back into the Promised Land. The expression occurs only once in the Scriptures."

In simple terms God is God, to the European mind, but not so the case to the Near Eastern mind (as the Scriptures where prepared for their culture) there is a lot more involved, which we should take into consideration when contemplating the Scriptures, as the above shows, many things are called God, god, gods etc. in the Bible so having the right prospective of this will help us to understand why Jesus can be "a god" (or divine one) and just as true but with out being The Almighty God.





Humans are referred to as "God" or "god".




Exodus 4:16 "And he* must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you** will serve as God*** to him*."


*Aaron; **Moses; ***N.W.T. (ftn) "As God." Heb., le´·lo·him', pl.; Gr., the·on'; Lat., De'um."

Exodus 7:1 "Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you God* to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

*N.W.T. "(ftn.) "God." Heb., ´elo·him'; Gr., the·on'; Latin, De'um."

N.I.V. Study Bible. Comment on Ex 7:1 (and Ex 4:16).

"As God transmits his word through his prophets to his people, so Moses will transmit God's message through Aaron to pharaoh. The prophet's task was to speak God's word on God's behalf. He was God's "mouth" (4:15-16)."

Jesus Christ is the prophet ("The Word") for Jehovah, like Moses (and much more), whom was a prophetic picture of The Christ, as Moses was the godlike mediator of the Law Covenant, whereas Jesus is the godlike Mediator (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 12:24) of the New Covenant as Deuteronomy 18:15 reads "A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you—to him YOU people should listen." See John 1:45; 6:14; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37.


Acts 12:21-22 "But on a set day Herod clothed himself with royal raiment and sat down upon the judgment seat and began giving them a public address. In turn the assembled people began shouting: "A god’s (Gk. qeou) voice, and not a man’s!""





Acts 14:11-12 "And the crowds, seeing what Paul had done, raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian tongue: "The gods (Gk. qeoi) have become like humans and have come down to us!" And they went calling Bar'na·bas Zeus, but Paul Her'mes, since he was the one taking the lead in speaking."

Psalms 82:1-8 "God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One*; In the middle of the gods** he judges: "How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy. To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice. Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one; Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them]." They have not known, and they do not understand; In darkness they keep walking about; All the foundations of the earth are made to totter. "I myself have said, 'YOU are gods***, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High. . . ."


*N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "God." Heb., ´El; LXXVg, "gods"; Sy, "angels.""


**N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "godlike ones." Heb., ´elo·him'; LXXVgc, "gods"; Sy, "angels"; T, "judges.""


***N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "godlike ones." Heb., ´elo·him'; Gr., the·oi'; Syr., da´·la·hin; Lat., di'i; T, like angels."



N.I.V. Study Bible. Comment on Ps 82:6.

"I said. Those who rule (or judge) do so by God's appointment (see 2:7 ; Isa 44:28) and thus they are his representatives- whether they acknowledge him or not (see Ex 9:16; Jer 27:6; Da 2:21; 4:17.32; 5:18; Jn 17:11; Ro 13:1). gods. See note on v. 1*. sons of. See note on v, 1, Most High. See note on Ge 14:19."

*"An early rabbinic interpretation (see Jn 10:35-35) understanding the "gods" (vv. 1,6) to be unjust rulers and judges in Israel, of whom there were many . . . ."

K.J.V. Companion Bible, Ps 82:1

**"gods Elohim: used of earthly judges as representing Him. Cp. Ex. 21.6; 22.8, 9, 28 (quoted in Acts 23.5.). Hence Moses is so spoken of (Ex. 7. 1). (it is used also of idols as representing even a false god.) See John 10. 34, 35."

"Verse 6. Ye are gods — Or, with the prefix of k ke, the particle of similitude, µyhlak keelohim, "like God." Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High."-Clarke's Commentary OT, Vol. 3 Job - Song of Solomon by Adam Clarke p.1084




Psalm 82:6

"I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

If God can call humans "gods" by his own word and these are also "sons" and as it is there are many of them as it refers to them in the plural.

It is clear that Jesus is "God’s Son" by his own admission (John 10:36), also God’s (Heb 1:5), and is one of many such, as the Scriptures make clear (excepting he is a very special one).

As God’s "sons" can be also be called "gods" by God himself (as above) and being as Jesus or "The Word," who is God’s "son" (John 1:14), can then, by context and connection, be correctly referred to as "a god" or one of the many of God’s "sons" called "gods" human or otherwise!



Cross-ref : Psalm 82:1, 6

John 10:33-35 "The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself [a] god (Gk. qeon)." Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods" (Gk. Qeoi) If he called 'gods' (Gk. qeouV ) those against whom the word of God (Gk. qeou) came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified," [In the next verses, 36, Jesus say he is "God's Son"; not God himself]




also:-


1 Corinthians 8:5-6 For even though there are those who are 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, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.



According to the Bible. I would like to hear your views.

BarryRob
"The scriptures do say that there are other gods:-"

Granted, however, as I said before,"Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him".

Therefore the word being "a god" contradicts God's command to have no other god's before HIm.

ollie

[NonTrinitarian]

"The scriptures do say that there are other gods:-"

Granted, however, as I said before,"Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him".

Therefore the word being "a god" contradicts God's command to have no other god's before HIm.

ollieDoes Jesus' argument that God calls other humans "god" also conflict with this? Basically what you have said is it is okay for anyone else but Jesus to be called a god.

[barryrob]

"The scriptures do say that there are other gods:-"

Granted, however, as I said before,"Scripture proclaims only one sovereign God and there should be no other gods before Him".

Therefore the word being "a god" contradicts God's command to have no other god's before HIm.

ollie


How can it if God inspired men to put HIS thought down on paper?
Barryrob

[Lily]

My experience when I talked with JW's has been they wanted to leave my home once I begin to show them scriptures that stated opposite of what they believed...such as who the 144,000 are...they come from the twelve tribes of Israel, Revelation Chapter 7. They didn't want to hear it..so they left, with me praying for them.

[barryrob]

So the NWT is telling us we have "a god" as the word seperate from God's word spoken in the beginning.

Ollie


Yes
Barryrob

[barryrob]

My experience when I talked with JW's has been they wanted to leave my home once I begin to show them scriptures that stated opposite of what they believed...such as who the 144,000 are...they come from the twelve tribes of Israel, Revelation Chapter 7. They didn't want to hear it..so they left, with me praying for them.
Start a thred on "twelve tribes of Israel, Revelation Chapter 7." and get back to me?

Barryrob

[Ed+6]

My brother has been a JW for 18 years, and over them 18 years I have read and studied everything I could get my hands on to learn about more about them. I have talked to at least a hundred JW's maybe more, I show them what I have found out about them mostly from there own books and share the gospel with them pray for them, tell them I am here if there are any questions, and above all do it in love and for HIS (GOD) glory!!!
Through the years, of studing about and talking to JW's I have grown in knowledge of GOD and HIS WORD and I have grown closer to HIM, JESUS.
Ed

[Sparko]

Welcome to TWEB Ed+6!

[Jin-Roh]

My experience when I talked with JW's has been they wanted to leave my home once I begin to show them scriptures that stated opposite of what they believed...such as who the 144,000 are...they come from the twelve tribes of Israel, Revelation Chapter 7. They didn't want to hear it..so they left, with me praying for them.

That's what happened with me last time. But not recentley this time I had some fairly old lady (been a JW for 25 years or so) I got into into with her, but her tag-along was a girl of about 17 years of age. I think I probably got through to hear a little bit after I asked her why she was a JW.

[barryrob]

(JW is short for Jehovah Witness if you don't know)

Some of them came to my door just a few minutes ago. I sat them down and we started comparing Scriptures. I pointed out that my NIV was very close to their bible.

The discussion went sour. When I starting bringing up translation issues I was "digging to deep into it." When I brought up the Ego Eimi (John 8:58) statements they must've seen where I was going becuase they took over the conversation, talking about the great commision and what not, and left the my house.

My only other experience with them recently was at a starbucks. I also brought up the Ego Eimi statements and they just kept dodging the issue and not letting me and another Christian talk at all.

I guess this is what I should expect. What has everyone elses experiences been with the JW's?

:huh:
So what would you like to talk about in concetion with John 8:58 Jin-Roh?
Ask away.

Barryrob

[MakeMineJesus]

My experience was somewhat different as the ground work was being prepared to shake me to my foundations. They came and I was conquerored my not them but HIM. I had to ask them not to come back as they were upsetting me because he was opening my heart up to HIS call. Guess Jws can be used to get the blood flowing in the heart and soul? Just know they are living in a world of illusion and delusion so they can not see past their noses. (hm___m does this sound like something we Christians have heard about in the Bible?) Delusion---desolation etc.

[Yamyam]

My experiences with them are good. I do a so called "bible study" with them, though I think it's more of a "study" about what they think. (which I like to know) They haven't been pushing so far, or forcing me into anything, things I hear from other people sometimes...I never had any trouble with them.
Though once one man got very angry. He thought I didn't understand a certain bible passage, and I thought their interpretation of it was just wrong, so I said something like: "Then there should be written something else, so I would understand better. I could have written it more understandable."
And the man got pissed->"So YOU dare to say that Paulus should have written something ELSE because YOU don't understand the text?!!!!"
Afterwards I was thinking about it and I came to the conclusion that the poor man could better not be so offended by opinions of others. Of course not everyone agrees with the WTG's interpretation; there are even people who curse the whole bible, and why be upset about it? It's your truth, not everyone's truth. Try to keep it personal and not project your truth to everyone else like they should think like you. They just don't.
Anyway, that was a little incident. For the rest everything goes fine.

The stupid questions underneath the texts of their books do annoy me, by the way. They're suggestive, too easy and some are NOT ok. Questions like "How can you be happy?" are bad questions, cause they don't ask about your opinion or feeling about it, but they want to hear just the exact prechewed answer written a few lines up. Blegh. Anyhow, I already said right in the beginning: I'm not going to answer those stupid questions, I will ask my own questions. They're ok with it.

[Krusader]

My experiences with them are good. I do a so called "bible study" with them, though I think it's more of a "study" about what they think. (which I like to know) They haven't been pushing so far, or forcing me into anything, things I hear from other people sometimes...I never had any trouble with them.
Though once one man got very angry. He thought I didn't understand a certain bible passage, and I thought their interpretation of it was just wrong, so I said something like: "Then there should be written something else, so I would understand better. I could have written it more understandable."
And the man got pissed->"So YOU dare to say that Paulus should have written something ELSE because YOU don't understand the text?!!!!"
Afterwards I was thinking about it and I came to the conclusion that the poor man could better not be so offended by opinions of others. Of course not everyone agrees with the WTG's interpretation; there are even people who curse the whole bible, and why be upset about it? It's your truth, not everyone's truth. Try to keep it personal and not project your truth to everyone else like they should think like you. They just don't.
Anyway, that was a little incident. For the rest everything goes fine.

The stupid questions underneath the texts of their books do annoy me, by the way. They're suggestive, too easy and some are NOT ok. Questions like "How can you be happy?" are bad questions, cause they don't ask about your opinion or feeling about it, but they want to hear just the exact prechewed answer written a few lines up. Blegh. Anyhow, I already said right in the beginning: I'm not going to answer those stupid questions, I will ask my own questions. They're ok with it.

JW Bible studies are better called "book studies," which revolve around the cult's interpretation of the Bible. Their Bible, the New World Translation, is in actuality a contrived translation supporting their Arianism and other distorted views. The "book study" is their primary vehicle for indoctrination into the cult.

[tiffanyh]

My experience was somewhat different as the ground work was being prepared to shake me to my foundations. They came and I was conquerored my not them but HIM. I had to ask them not to come back as they were upsetting me because he was opening my heart up to HIS call. Guess Jws can be used to get the blood flowing in the heart and soul?....

I found this response to be pretty interesting, since I had a fairly similar encounter in my college days.

I was in a summer music group (a drum and bugle corps, for you marching brass nuts out there who know what that is) which travelled around the country on a bus. One night when we were going between show sites, a couple of my friends (JW's) who played the same instrument as I were sitting by me, and were talking about their faith with me. I don't remember much about the precise conversation, only my reaction - I got really upset at some of the things they were saying - particularly about the fact that only JW's are saved. I left the conversation and went to the back of the bus where another of my friends (whose dad was a Pastor I came to find out) helped me to calm down and explained to me why their viewpoint was unlikely.

I look back at that - and am very thankful that God was watching out for me (warning flags, even if I didn't understand WHY) even before I came to truly accept Him into my life. At the end of the summer, the JW friends gave me a contact person in my college town that I could call if I was interested (thankfully they didn't give him my number instead) and I was able to politely move on.

Interestingly, I was also approached by a pretty serious cult (of the "sign all your money over to us and move into the group home when you convert" sort) later that year and was able to sense the danger involved and get out of their web pretty quickly as well. They were still sounding almost mainline Christian at the point where I said "no thanks", and I later found out the extent of the craziness involved. Had a few run-ins with them later that year when they were approaching some other younger students that I knew, but again - in retrospect - I am just so thankful that God was nudging me all those years and not allowing me to get sidetracked.

[Krusader]

I found this response to be pretty interesting, since I had a fairly similar encounter in my college days.

I was in a summer music group (a drum and bugle corps, for you marching brass nuts out there who know what that is) which travelled around the country on a bus. One night when we were going between show sites, a couple of my friends (JW's) who played the same instrument as I were sitting by me, and were talking about their faith with me. I don't remember much about the precise conversation, only my reaction - I got really upset at some of the things they were saying - particularly about the fact that only JW's are saved. I left the conversation and went to the back of the bus where another of my friends (whose dad was a Pastor I came to find out) helped me to calm down and explained to me why their viewpoint was unlikely.

I look back at that - and am very thankful that God was watching out for me (warning flags, even if I didn't understand WHY) even before I came to truly accept Him into my life. At the end of the summer, the JW friends gave me a contact person in my college town that I could call if I was interested (thankfully they didn't give him my number instead) and I was able to politely move on.

Interestingly, I was also approached by a pretty serious cult (of the "sign all your money over to us and move into the group home when you convert" sort) later that year and was able to sense the danger involved and get out of their web pretty quickly as well. They were still sounding almost mainline Christian at the point where I said "no thanks", and I later found out the extent of the craziness involved. Had a few run-ins with them later that year when they were approaching some other younger students that I knew, but again - in retrospect - I am just so thankful that God was nudging me all those years and not allowing me to get sidetracked.

JWs don't usually use the word "saved." When they speak of "salvation," they basically mean that they will be "saved" through Armageddon and ushered into the restored earth. After the millenium, if they are faithful to Jehovah, they will receive a relative eternal life on this restored earth. No Jehovah's Witness today knows whether or not he will or will not be "saved," since in the final analysis, salvation is dependent upon his/her obedience....not grace.