Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

I can be abrasive so I do apologize for being so direct or not filtering my words better.

Already forgotten. Let's get back to debate.

I could be a juvenile or immature person in regards to certain doctines in the bible but in regards to John 10:30;

We all see through a glass darkly @lymus. Well, except for the Jehovah Witnesses that is:

"Consider, too, the fact that Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force. (Zech. 4:6) Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." Watchtower 1973 Jul 1 p.402​

in my opinion you would be considered a juvenile:

I have little doubt of that. It is, after all, your opinion.

No shame in that if you allow growth though instead of mocking JWs

Mock? Do you consider my questions mocking??

I consider them challenging @lymus, at least for the Witnesses here. The questions I ask are fairly easy to answer from a Trinitarian perspective. In return I expect to receive a vigorous response. This is a debate forum after all.

If we fail to challenge each other or ourselves we fail to grow spiritually. Right now, I've posed 3 questions, based on the premise that the WT's rendering of John 10:30 was correct... a rendering I personally don't agree with.... yet my questions are still unanswered.

...who seem to have a much better assessment in regards to the Heavenly Father

Well if that's true I'm not sure what's stopping you from joining up right away. If their assessment of the Heavenly Father is much better than mine, as you claim it is, it won't be long before we see the destruction of all "false religion" and millions of smiling and grateful Jehovah Witnesses milling around the bodies and burnt remnants of all Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Bahá'í and Judaic houses of worship as shown by the Watchtower illustration below:

[GALLERY=media, 7196]BurningChurch by Oeste posted Dec 10, 2015 at 12:27 PM[/GALLERY]​

As the Witnesses say, it will be paradise!

 

[Iymus]

Right now, I've posed 3 questions, based on the premise that the WT's rendering of John 10:30 was correct..

Christ and The Father are unified, or are of one one accord is correct; This does not contradict Christ being One in Agreement with our God and Father who is greater based off John 10:29-30.

-----------------------------

Why do i suspect your interpretation of John 10:30 is incorrect?

Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

 

[Oeste]

Christ and The Father are unified, or are of one one accord is correct; This does not contradict Christ being One in Agreement with our God and Father who is greater based off John 10:29-30.

My bad. That should be John 10:33, as discussed in the OP.

The question is whether John 10:33 should be "a god" or "God". I'm trying to find a coherent, rational explanation as to why it was rendered "a god" in the NWT.

Why do i suspect your interpretation of John 10:30 is incorrect?

I don't know.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have been thinking about this a bit and the short answer is that God is everywhere and so you whole premise is wrong.
Yet God can be an observer everywhere and the one who holds everything together or God can be more than that and actually be present and interacting with people.
This does not mean that God has left heaven to be on earth to do this. When God was with Moses does that mean that He was not also in heaven and everywhere else also? No.
When the prehuman Jesus was sent to be a man I guess that does not mean that He was not also in heaven and everywhere else also. (and He was everywhere before He left heaven because He was in the form of God, who is everywhere Phil 2)
And since He retained this form when He became a man (according to the Greek Grammar) that means that He was also everywhere else at the same time.
But Jesus was sent to be a man and obey His Father and so I think that Jesus consciousness was limited by Him to that body (even if He was given the Spirit without measure John 3:34) and when He ascended He allowed Himself, His consciousness to fill all things (Eph 4:10)
So now Jesus is that life giving Spirit (1Cor 15:45) as well as being a man with a transformed human body, as seen in the resurrection story, and in whom dwells all the fullness of complete deity. (Col 2:9), so that Thomas believed and said that Jesus was his God,,,,,,,,,,which had to mean that Jesus was Jehovah.
But of course the complete understanding of God is a bit beyond me even if the WT thinks that if we cannot understand it, it must be untrue,,,,,,,,,as with a God who is one and at the same time 3. (a compound one God).

Not separate, they are always together. A better word is distinct.
I think I just answered the rest of the question. But of course no doubt volumes have been written about it so maybe I can say a bit more,,,,,,,,,,,or maybe ask you what you think.
We all know that the Holy Spirit can be in many places at once. (maybe I should not assume anything,,,,,,,,,,,,so is that true?)
We all know that the prehuman Jesus was in the form of God, who is everywhere, and so the prehuman Jesus was everywhere then, since He was in that same form. Again I should not assume that we all know that since the WT wants you to believe that "the same form" means just that Jesus was a spirit before He became a man. So what do you think?
We all know that the scriptures teach us that God is everywhere and that heaven and the heaven of the heavens cannot hold Him. (1Kings 8:27) Again I better ask if that is true or not?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you believe that God is a trinity or three separate and distinct persons, I can only guess that you believe all three were in Jesus' flesh while all three were also in heaven at the same time. Do I have that correct about your viewpoint?

 

[Iymus]

I don't know.

which is why the breakdown of John 10:33 is not expedient for you in my opinion. what seems more expedient is

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

[YoursTrue]

My bad. That should be John 10:33, as discussed in the OP.

The question is whether John 10:33 should be "a god" or "God". I'm trying to find a coherent, rational explanation as to why it was rendered "a god" in the NWT.

It wouldn't make sense that any Jew would decide that Jesus was making himself God with a captal G. They also knew as Jesus pointed out, that others were rightfully called gods. Jesus pointed out the scripture to them, calling them gods. How do you feel about that?

 

[Oeste]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you believe that God is a trinity or three separate and distinct persons, I can only guess that you believe all three were in Jesus' flesh while all three were also in heaven at the same time. Do I have that correct about your viewpoint?

Jesus has a dual nature. He is Son of Man as well as Son of God. Jesus as Son of Man is 100% man, just like you and me, and therefore does not have the "Trinity" in his flesh.

Jesus as Son of God is the 2nd person of the Triune Godhead.

Jesus at all times can call upon his Father just like we can. He also had the ability, as the Son of Man to call upon his Godhood, however once he called upon his Godhood he would no longer be man and would have failed in his mission.

Thus, in order to live a perfect life as a man, he could not call upon his Godhood but had to look to the Father to carry out his mission. He did nothing on his own (which would be rebellion), but simply did what he saw his Father doing, carrying out the Father's instructions just as the Father commanded. This is something no human had ever done before.

We can see this interplay of God and Man when Satan tempts Jesus:

Matthew 4:

2. After fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry.

Jesus, Son of Man, is hungry. Jesus, Son of God does not become hungry

3. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Notice Satan is addressing the Son of God. Why? Because the Son of Man cannot turn stones into bread! Had Jesus been a man only, the entire temptation becomes meaningless. He cannot "tempt" the Father into turning stones into bread for him, and he is utterly powerless to carry out the deed himself as Son of Man. Satan realizes the Son of Man is famished, and is hoping Jesus will use his power as Son of God to turn the stones into bread, thus failing his mission to live a life of man.

4. Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

Jesus tells Satan that "Man" shall not live on bread alone, totally rebuffing Satan's call to him as the Son of God "...but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." In other words, he's going to continue living his life as a man. But Satan isn't through with him quite yet. He addresses Jesus as Son of God two more times.

It's important to note that if Jesus receives his power "through Jehovah" then Satan would actually be tempting the Father to use His power to save Jesus, which is nonsensical. The Father cannot be tempted. Jesus, Son of God cannot be tempted. Jesus, Son of Man, the one who gets hungry, feels fatigue and suffers as a man can be tempted.

I really didn't want to get into a discussion of the Trinity on this thread but thought it important to answer you question (@Brian2 feel free to answer differently).

I'd much rather focus on getting answers to thread theme.

 

[Oeste]

Why do i suspect your interpretation of John 10:30 is incorrect?

I don't know.

which is why the breakdown of John 10:33 is not expedient for you in my opinion.

I'm not following you here. There is no way I'm going to know why you suspect my interpretation of John 10:30 or John 10:33 is incorrect. Also, I would much rather have an accurate than expedient result.

The charge is blasphemy. As such the Jews are charging Jesus for making himself God.

Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

This comes AFTER the crowds charge of blasphemy, not before. As I stated before, if I charge you with stealing my watch and you correct me, I cannot use your correction to say I never charged you with stealing my watch.

Likewise, once the crowd charged Jesus with blasphemy, you cannot use a later correction by Jesus to claim the charge of blasphemy wasn't made. You can say the charge was incorrect, but you cannot say it wasn't made.

And as I've already pointed out, the only time you get charged with blasphemy is when you defile the Sacred Name, and not just a name.

 

[Oeste]

It wouldn't make sense that any Jew would decide that Jesus was making himself God with a captal G.

Obviously it made sense to the crowd. They charged him with blasphemy, and you only time you are charged with blasphemy is if you defile the Divine Name. That means a capital G.

They also knew as Jesus pointed out, that others were rightfully called gods. Jesus pointed out the scripture to them, calling them gods. How do you feel about that?

Jesus didn't point this out to the crowd before they picked up stones, Jesus pointed this out to the crowd after they picked up stones (see my response to @lymus above). Also, I might point out they were "rightfully called gods" to their shame, as God condemned all of them. There would be no condemnation if they were simply "righteous gods".

It would have been better if they had retained their roles as judges rather than exalting themselves as gods. The judges were righteously condemned as gods by God once they became corrupt, and not exalted as gods because they were.

 

[Iymus]

I'm not following you here. There is no way I'm going to know why you suspect my interpretation of John 10:30 or John 10:33 is incorrect.

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

the Jews understood a god cannot give eternal life, just as a judge cannot judge of himself. Perhaps if they mentioned their deity who does such things as just "a god" then they themselves deserved to be stoned according to their customs, traditions, laws, etc.

Christ clarified

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

he did not say If I do not the works of my father "lowercase", believe me not.

further clarification

Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
------------------------

Eternal Life , Will, Doctrine, Authority comes from only one; and we know who that someone isn't.

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.


FYI- Notice whose words specifically I am quoting and whose words specifically you would want to try to use to contradict

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If someone believes that Jesus is Yahweh manifest in the flesh, what difference does this make as far as the trinity goes?

There is only one God. (A Spirit whose name is YHWH.) If you truly understand that YHWH manifested himself in the flesh as the Messiah, then you should be able to see that there is no Trinity.

 

[Iymus]

There is only one God. (A Spirit whose name is YHWH.) If you truly understand that YHWH manifested himself in the flesh as the Messiah, then you should be able to see that there is no Trinity.

Not as but thru or by; big difference

1Co 8:6 KJV But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Joh 8:42 KJV Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

There is only one God. (A Spirit whose name is YHWH.) If you truly understand that YHWH manifested himself in the flesh as the Messiah, then you should be able to see that there is no Trinity.

By the Messiah; by the Messiah delaring him and being subservient to his will and works.

There is only one God. (A Spirit whose name is YHWH.) If you truly understand that YHWH manifested himself in the flesh as the Messiah, then you should be able to see that there is no Trinity.

From what I have read you both seem to be in agreement in regards to their being no trinity

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus has a dual nature. He is Son of Man as well as Son of God. Jesus as Son of Man is 100% man, just like you and me, and therefore does not have the "Trinity" in his flesh.

Jesus as Son of God is the 2nd person of the Triune Godhead.

Jesus at all times can call upon his Father just like we can. He also had the ability, as the Son of Man to call upon his Godhood, however once he called upon his Godhood he would no longer be man and would have failed in his mission.

Thus, in order to live a perfect life as a man, he could not call upon his Godhood but had to look to the Father to carry out his mission. He did nothing on his own (which would be rebellion), but simply did what he saw his Father doing, carrying out the Father's instructions just as the Father commanded. This is something no human had ever done before.

We can see this interplay of God and Man when Satan tempts Jesus:

Matthew 4:

2. After fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry.

Jesus, Son of Man, is hungry. Jesus, Son of God does not become hungry

3. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Notice Satan is addressing the Son of God. Why? Because the Son of Man cannot turn stones into bread! Had Jesus been a man only, the entire temptation becomes meaningless. He cannot "tempt" the Father into turning stones into bread for him, and he is utterly powerless to carry out the deed himself as Son of Man. Satan realizes the Son of Man is famished, and is hoping Jesus will use his power as Son of God to turn the stones into bread, thus failing his mission to live a life of man.

4. Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

Jesus tells Satan that "Man" shall not live on bread alone, totally rebuffing Satan's call to him as the Son of God "...but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." In other words, he's going to continue living his life as a man. But Satan isn't through with him quite yet. He addresses Jesus as Son of God two more times.

It's important to note that if Jesus receives his power "through Jehovah" then Satan would actually be tempting the Father to use His power to save Jesus, which is nonsensical. The Father cannot be tempted. Jesus, Son of God cannot be tempted. Jesus, Son of Man, the one who gets hungry, feels fatigue and suffers as a man can be tempted.

I really didn't want to get into a discussion of the Trinity on this thread but thought it important to answer you question (@Brian2 feel free to answer differently).

I'd much rather focus on getting answers to thread theme.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

Regardless of the theme, this is a discussion of the Trinity. Because many believe the trinity is God and so any definition of who Jesus is/was, and who the Father is/was, or whether Jesus was the Father-in-the-flesh, or God-in-the-flesh, or "fully" son of man and son of God at the same time, becomes entangled with any translation of theos, which is the word used at John 10:34. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[Oeste]

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Correct!

Jesus as the Son of Man is speaking using the first person pronoun "I". He gives eternal life and only God can grant eternal life.

the Jews understood a god cannot give eternal life, just as a judge cannot judge of himself.

Correct! If Jesus were simply a "powerful person" he would still simply be a man. A powerful man, but not one who can grant eternal life.
Besides, the Jews don't stone you for simply being powerful.

It's important to note that Jesus does not say "The Father gives unto them eternal life..." or "...neither shall any man pluck them out of his hand." In fact he specifically mentions his own hand and then the Fathers in verse 29.

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

he did not say If I do not the works of my father "lowercase", believe me not.

Correct! Obviously he's not referring to Joseph or any earthly father figure, but the Father in heaven.

In short, the Jews believed Christ was claiming to be God with a capital "G" because, as you've already stated, the Jews understood "a god" cannot grant eternal life. This is verified by scripture at John 10:33 when Jesus is charged by the crowd with blasphemy.

For purposes of John 10:33, it doesn't matter if Jesus meant to tell them he was a frog, a toad, or a mushroom. It doesn't matter if Jesus says "Hey guys, you got me all wrong" or whether he says "Hey guys, you really nailed it" aftewards. The charge by the crowd is blasphemy, and the only was to get a blasphemy charge is to insult the Divine Name. You can't charge someone with blasphemy if you're using a small "g" to refer to God the Heavenly Father. It has to be a capital. So John 10:33 should read "God" and not "a god".

I see nothing in your post that changes this, nor have you offered sufficient evidence to show this is incorrect. We can talk about unrelated matters but it's not going to alter the crowd's charge of blasphemy.

I really don't see the problem here Lymus. Blasphemy carries with it a big "G". Nothing Jesus said before, and nothing Jesus says afterwards changes this. Yet you persist as if it would.

Why? Am I misunderstanding your intentions?? Can you tell us specifically why anything you posted here would change a blasphemed "God" to a small "god" at 10:33? Or are you agreeing with me that a capital "G' should be there?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is only one God. (A Spirit whose name is YHWH.) If you truly understand that YHWH manifested himself in the flesh as the Messiah, then you should be able to see that there is no Trinity.

Jesus was a human. He was not 'God-in-the-flesh," but he certainly did have God's spirit. Does that mean that God from heaven was living in Jesus' body on the earth? No. It means that Jehovah was with Jesus, that He listened to his prayers and answered him. I see there is no trinity anyway. because the "Word" in John 1:1 left his position in heaven and came down to the earth as a "full" human being, not God within the flesh who could not get out of the flesh. But thank you.

 

[Oeste]

Anyway, have a nice day.

You too, @YoursTrue!

It's been enjoyable conversation.

I'll be starting a Trinity thread soon and I hope you, @Lymus and others will participate. I hope to get as many skeptics and anti-Trinitarians as possible, so bring those heavy guns!!

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct!

Jesus as the Son of Man is speaking using the first person pronoun "I". He gives eternal life and only God can grant eternal life.



Correct! If Jesus were simply a "powerful person" he would still simply be a man. A powerful man, but not one who can grant eternal life.
Besides, the Jews don't stone you for simply being powerful.

It's important to note that Jesus does not say "The Father gives unto them eternal life..." or "...neither shall any man pluck them out of his hand." In fact he specifically mentions his own hand and then the Fathers in verse 29.





Correct! Obviously he's not referring to Joseph or any earthly father figure, but the Father in heaven.

In short, the Jews believed Christ was claiming to be God with a capital "G" because, as you've already stated, the Jews understood "a god" cannot grant eternal life. This is verified by scripture at John 10:33 when Jesus is charged by the crowd with blasphemy.

For purposes of John 10:33, it doesn't matter if Jesus meant to tell them he was a frog, a toad, or a mushroom. It doesn't matter if Jesus says "Hey guys, you got me all wrong" or whether he says "Hey guys, you really nailed it" aftewards. The charge by the crowd is blasphemy, and the only was to get a blasphemy charge is to insult the Divine Name. You can't charge someone with blasphemy if you're using a small "g" to refer to God the Heavenly Father. It has to be a capital. So John 10:33 should read "God" and not "a god".

I see nothing in your post that changes this, nor have you offered sufficient evidence to show this is incorrect. We can talk about unrelated matters but it's not going to alter the crowd's charge of blasphemy.

I really don't see the problem here Lymus. Blasphemy carries with it a big "G". Nothing Jesus said before, and nothing Jesus says afterwards changes this. Yet you persist as if it would.

Why? Am I misunderstanding your intentions?? Can you tell us specifically why anything you posted here would change a blasphemed "God" to a small "god" at 10:33? Or are you agreeing with me that a capital "G' should be there?

Here's what I think: when the heavens opened up at Jesus' baptism, he knew at that time exactly what happened in heaven before he came to the earth. His memory of what happened was granted him. He knew he would give his sheep eternal life. Now the question comes up: why did he pray to the Father, with tears and supplication? What was the point of him praying to the Father fervently if he knew everything there is to know?

 

[Iymus]

Correct!

Jesus as the Son of Man is speaking using the first person pronoun "I". He gives eternal life and only God can grant eternal life.

Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Joh 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?



Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Correct! If Jesus were simply a "powerful person" he would still simply be a man. A powerful man, but not one who can grant eternal life.
Besides, the Jews don't stone you for simply being powerful.

It's important to note that Jesus does not say "The Father gives unto them eternal life..." or "...neither shall any man pluck them out of his hand." In fact he specifically mentions his own hand and then the Fathers in verse 29.

Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.



Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Joh 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

Correct!

Jesus as the Son of Man is speaking using the first person pronoun "I". He gives eternal life and only God can grant eternal life.

Joh 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.





2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


I see a possible connection when it comes to your messiah and a certain individual transformed into an angel of light: They seemingly both speak of themselves and seek their own glory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Obviously it made sense to the crowd. They charged him with blasphemy, and you only time you are charged with blasphemy is if you defile the Divine Name. That means a capital G.



Jesus didn't point this out to the crowd before they picked up stones, Jesus pointed this out to the crowd after they picked up stones (see my response to @lymus above). Also, I might point out they were "rightfully called gods" to their shame, as God condemned all of them. There would be no condemnation if they were simply "righteous gods".

It would have been better if they had retained their roles as judges rather than exalting themselves as gods. The judges were righteously condemned as gods by God once they became corrupt, and not exalted as gods because they were.

Do you think Jesus defiled the divine Name?

 

[YoursTrue]

You too, @YoursTrue!

It's been enjoyable conversation.

I'll be starting a Trinity thread soon and I hope you, @Lymus and others will participate. I hope to get as many skeptics and anti-Trinitarians as possible, so bring those heavy guns!!

Aren't you glad that anti-trinitarians are not burned at the stake, like Michael Servetus was? By trinitarians? (I am.)