JW's 46 Questions to Trinitarians

[tosca1]

As for Genesis 1:26, that merely shows that Jesus was alongside Jehovah God, while creating the earth and its inhabitants, as the Bible states in other scriptures...

"Then I was beside him as a master worker.
I was the one he was especially fond of day by day;
I rejoiced before him all the time;" Proverbs 8:30

Proverbs 8 talks about wisdom (personification).

Jehovah's Witnesses Bible translation:

Proverbs 8
22 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,+The earliest of his achievements of long ago.
(to JWs, wisdom = Jesus) Right, Elvira?


JWs believe that if wisdom was created, the wisdom of God is Jesus Christ.
Therefore, Solomon must be saying that Jesus was created. Right?

In other words, before Jesus was created.....Jehovah had no wisdom.


Do you believe that Jehovah had no wisdom?

 

[it's just me]

How to Misread Proverbs 8. One biblical text that illustrates this principle is a famous poem that praises wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31). Here are the first five verses of the poem:

The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.

Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.

When there were no depths I was brought forth,

when there were no springs abounding with water.

Before the mountains had been shaped,

before the hills, I was brought forth,

before he had made the earth with its fields,

or the first of the dust of the world. (esv)

Who is speaking here? The lead-in to the speech answers the question: “Does not wisdom call?” (v. 1); and in verse 12, we read, “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence.” The repeated first-person references (my lips, my mouth, etc.), therefore, are to wisdom.

With this context as your guide, you would probably not find the passage difficult, but what would you say if someone rattled off proof texts to support the belief that the speaker of the poem is really Christ and that the passage, moreover, shows that Jesus is a created being? This is exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim regarding the passage....

This takes us back to Proverbs 8. The main subject of Proverbs chapters 1–9 is wisdom, which is an abstract quality or character trait rather than a person, but wisdom is treated as a woman from the first chapter right through chapter 9. Wisdom is portrayed as a woman of dazzling attractiveness and virtue, who teaches in the marketplace of the town (1:20), who is romantically embraced (4:8–9), who can be addressed as “my sister” (7:4), who utters a long speech commending herself to the public (chap. 8), and who builds a house and invites people to an alluring banquet (9:1–6).....

https://www.equip.org/article/who-is-wisdom-in-proverbs-8/

 

[veritas1]

And Christianity was “cooked up” by a bunch of pedophiles in the 1st century. And, then it was sold to people who could not read. What’s the diff?

Being able to read has nothing to do with being able to understand. JW took established doctrine and altered it to make a new religion. What they peddle is not Christianity and they are deceiving people if they suggest otherwise. BTW, who were "the pedophiles" and why would people make up something that could only lead to their persecution? You make these statements but they are not founded on anything but your own biases.

 

[veritas1]

Bull**** is bull****. My personal struggles with belief or unbelief and whatever nags has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. For example, I don't believe Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism but I have no need to constantly run around attacking them or talking about them. I don't really give them a thought except when Islamic radicals kill people. If you were so convinced of the falseness of Christianity, you wouldn't need to haunt this forum endlessly proclaiming it. You'd find something else to do.

 

[calamity]

Of course it does. For example, I don't believe Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism but I have no need to constantly run around attacking them or talking about them. I don't really give them a thought except when Islamic radicals kill people. If you were so convinced of the falseness of Christianity, you wouldn't need to haunt this forum endlessly proclaiming it. You'd find something else to do.

If Christianity did not have such a disproportionate influence on this country's policies, mores and norms, I would ignore it like I do Hinduism, Wiccan, New Age, Muslim and all the other crackpot lunatic religions out there. But, since this particular brand of charlatanism holds so much sway, I am obligated to call it out for the bull**** that it is.

 

[Logicman]

My apologies,I meant Matthew 28:19

But as a quick reply,I don't think early Christians necessarily thought of the Holy Spirit as a different divine person. In fact the word "trinity" wasn't even used until 206 by Tertullian.

The Holy Spirit was seen early as God as noted in Acts chapter 5:

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Tell me something else: If the Holy Spirit is just some inanimate force, then how do you lie to something that does not have intellect?

PERSONAL attributes of the Holy Spirit include:

1. The Holy Spirit "testifies" (Nehemiah 9:30).
2. The Spirit "instructs" (Nehemiah 9:20).
3. The Spirit "strives with men" (Genesis 6:3).
4. The Spirit sends messengers (Isaiah 48:16).
5. The Spirit enabled Joseph to interpret Pharoah's dreams (Genesis 41:38).
6. The Spirit gives wisdom (Exodus 28:3; 31:1-6; 35:31).
7. The Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of Wisdom" (Isaiah 11:2).
8. He is the Spirit of Knowledge (Isaiah 11:2)

 

[Suburban Jedi]

The Holy Spirit was seen early as God as noted in Acts chapter 5:

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Tell me something else: If the Holy Spirit is just some inanimate force, then how do you lie to something that does not have intellect?

PERSONAL attributes of the Holy Spirit include:

1. The Holy Spirit "testifies" (Nehemiah 9:30).
2. The Spirit "instructs" (Nehemiah 9:20).
3. The Spirit "strives with men" (Genesis 6:3).
4. The Spirit sends messengers (Isaiah 48:16).
5. The Spirit enabled Joseph to interpret Pharoah's dreams (Genesis 41:38).
6. The Spirit gives wisdom (Exodus 28:3; 31:1-6; 35:31).
7. The Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of Wisdom" (Isaiah 11:2).
8. He is the Spirit of Knowledge (Isaiah 11:2)

But did they really see the Holy Spirit as an entirely different person,or a manifestation of God in the world?

 

[Logicman]

But did they really see the Holy Spirit as an entirely different person,or a manifestation of God in the world?

Some saw the Holy Spirit as God and some didn't. But the scriptures from the Old and New Testaments show the Holy Spirit is God.

Here's another example you would hope they would have understood:

While in Genesis 1:2 we see the "Spirit of God" moving upon the face of the waters during creation (remember God as "Elohim," a plural creator), there is a very important and often overlooked verse in which the prophet Isaiah reveals that the Holy Spirit is more than just some type of spiritual force. Isaiah 63:10 reads,

"But they rebelled, and vexed His Holy Spirit: therefore He was turned to be their enemy, and He fought against them."

The word "vexed," as used above, is the Hebrew word "atsab," which means "to worry, pain, or anger; to grieve, hurt, or make sorry" (Zodhiates Old Testament Word Study - Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary section, page 91). The question, of course, is "How can some inanimate force be angered or grieved, as we see occurred in the above passage? Only if the Holy Spirit was alive and possessed personal attributes could He experience these types of emotions." The Holy Spirit must therefore be a person.

Another important verse that shows that the Holy Spirit is one of the "Creators" is found in Job 33:4, which reads,

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

Obviously, the Holy Spirit must possess intelligence in order to take part in the creative process.


These things fit a Triune God model much better than the JW's revisionist mono-God claim.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Some saw the Holy Spirit as God and some didn't. But the scriptures from the Old and New Testaments show the Holy Spirit is God.

Here's another example you would hope they would have understood:

While in Genesis 1:2 we see the "Spirit of God" moving upon the face of the waters during creation (remember God as "Elohim," a plural creator), there is a very important and often overlooked verse in which the prophet Isaiah reveals that the Holy Spirit is more than just some type of spiritual force. Isaiah 63:10 reads,

"But they rebelled, and vexed His Holy Spirit: therefore He was turned to be their enemy, and He fought against them."

The word "vexed," as used above, is the Hebrew word "atsab," which means "to worry, pain, or anger; to grieve, hurt, or make sorry" (Zodhiates Old Testament Word Study - Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary section, page 91). The question, of course, is "How can some inanimate force be angered or grieved, as we see occurred in the above passage? Only if the Holy Spirit was alive and possessed personal attributes could He experience these types of emotions." The Holy Spirit must therefore be a person.

Another important verse that shows that the Holy Spirit is one of the "Creators" is found in Job 33:4, which reads,

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

Obviously, the Holy Spirit must possess intelligence in order to take part in the creative process.


These things fit a Triune God model much better than the JW's revisionist mono-God claim.

Spirit in Hebrew is "nephesh",which also is translated as "breath". To the ancient Hebrews,the nephesh was the essence of life. Also, the ANE a single god could have various manifestations,but not be a different god (ie the Manifestations of the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda).

That said, I always find using Christian theology to interpret the Tanakh to be problematic,because it's inherently eisegetical. But that aside, it'snot clear from scripture that early Christians thought of the Holy Spirit as an entirely different person.That tends to come from later theological developments culminating eventually in the Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th Centuries.

 

[Logicman]

Since Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, that makes sense...

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" Colossians 1:15

Here is the answer: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-first-born.html


What's more, Jesus has to be Jehovah according to the scriptural evidence:

John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as saying John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the LORD (Jehovah). John prepared the way before Jesus so Jesus must be LORD (Jehovah).

In Isaiah 44:8 God is the only Rock. Psalm 18:31 says, “Who is the Rock except our God”? I Corinthians 10:4, identifies Jesus as the Rock. Jesus must also then be God the Rock.

Isaiah 44:24 says that God (Jehovah) is the one who has made all things. Colossians 1:16, speaking of Christ, says that “all things were created by Him and for him”. Jesus must therefore be Jehovah God.

In Jeremiah 10:10 it says “the LORD (Jehovah) is the true God”. I John 5:20 states that Jesus is the “true God”. Jesus must be the true God.

Isaiah 43:10,11 says that “I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no savior besides Me. Jesus is the Savior (Matthew 1:21, Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, etc., etc.). Jesus must be God the Savior.

Jehovah knows all things (Psalm 147:5). Jesus knows “all things.” (John 16:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah alone is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus knows the hearts of all men. (John 2:24-25; Rev. 2:18, 23). Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our sanctifier. (Exodus 31:13). Jesus sanctifies us (Hebrews 10:10). Only God is the sanctifier of men. Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our peace (Judges 6:23). Jesus is our peace (Ephesians 2:14). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6). Jesus is our righteousness. (Romans 3:21-22; 1 Corinthians 1:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be delivered / snatched out of His hand (Deuteronomy 32:39). Jesus is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be “snatched” out of His hand. (John 10:28). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s voice is “like the roar of rushing waters” (Ezekiel 43:2). Jesus’ “voice was like the sound of rushing waters” (Revelation 1:15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is present everywhere.(Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:24; I Kings 8:27); Jesus is omnipresent (John 1:48; Matthew 18:20; 28:20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s nature does not change (Malachi 3:6). Jesus’ nature does not change. (Hebrews 13:8).

Jehovah is the only God we are to “serve”(2 Kings 17:35); Jesus (identified as the Creator in Colossians 1:16-17) is to be served (Colossians 3:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah the Lord is to be set apart as holy (Isaiah 8:12b-13). Jesus, as Lord, is to be set apart as holy (1 Peter 3:14b-15a).

Jehovah’s glory is not to be given to another (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus shares Jehovah’s glory (John 17:5). Jesus must be Jehovah.

God’s name is Jehovah (or Yahweh—YHWH – Isaiah 42:8). Jesus has Jehovah’s name (John 17:11; John 16:14-15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “mighty God” (Jeremiah 32:17-18; Isaiah 10:20-21). Jesus is the “mighty God”
(Isaiah 9:6) who is “Almighty” (Revelation 1:7-8).

Jehovah is “the first and the last” (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12). Jesus is the “first and the last” (Revelation 1:17-18; 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s title is “the Holy One” (Isaiah 47:4). Jesus is “the Holy One” (Acts 3:14; John 6:69). Jesus must be Jehovah, the Holy One.

Jehovah is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (Isaiah 8:13-15). Jesus is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great Judge who gives life to whom he wishes and who renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (Psalm 98:9; Deuteronomy 32:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus is the only judge who gives life to whom he wishes and renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (John 5:21-22; Revelation 2:18, 23). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great “shepherd” who leads his people to “the spring of the water of life” (Psalm 23:1-2; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus as the “shepherd” of His people, leads them “to springs of the water of life” (John 10:11-18; Revelation 7:17). THERE IS ONLY ONE SHEPHERD –John 10:16.

Jehovah created the universe (Psalm 102:25-27). Jesus created the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-19; Hebrews 1:10-12). THERE IS ONLY ONE CREATOR. (Isaiah 44:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.

https://righterreport.com/2011/09/29/jesus-must-be-jehovah-god/

 

[Logicman]

Spirit in Hebrew is "nephesh",which also is translated as "breath". To the ancient Hebrews,the nephesh was the essence of life. Also, the ANE a single god could have various manifestations,but not be a different god (ie the Manifestations of the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda).

That said, I always find using Christian theology to interpret the Tanakh to be problematic,because it's inherently eisegetical. But that aside, it'snot clear from scripture that early Christians thought of the Holy Spirit as an entirely different person.That tends to come from later theological developments culminating eventually in the Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th Centuries.

The scriptural evidence for the deity of the Holy Spirit is found in both the Old and New Testaments - long before the 4th and 5th centuries.

But the question I posed earlier I pose again to you: If the Holy Spirit is just some inanimate force, then how do you lie to something that does not have intellect (Acts 5, Isaiah 63:10)?

 

[Suburban Jedi]

The scriptural evidence for the deity of the Holy Spirit is found in both the Old and New Testaments - long before the 4th and 5th centuries.

But the question I posed earlier I pose again to you: If the Holy Spirit is just some inanimate force, then how do you lie to something that does not have intellect (Acts 5, Isaiah 63:10)?

But if you look at the concept of "nephesh"it was the life essence, the very center of any given being. So if you lie to the "nephesh", you're lying to the very core of that being --not a wholly different being altogether.

 

[Logicman]

But if you look at the concept of "nephesh"it was the life essence, the very center of any given being. So if you lie to the "nephesh", you're lying to the very core of that being --not a wholly different being altogether.

So you agree - when one lies to the "nephesh" they are lying to the very core of that being. Then the Holy Spirit has to be a person, a being.

 

[it's just me]

If Christianity did not have such a disproportionate influence on this country's policies, mores and norms, I would ignore it like I do Hinduism, Wiccan, New Age, Muslim and all the other crackpot lunatic religions out there. But, since this particular brand of charlatanism holds so much sway, I am obligated to call it out for the bull**** that it is.

So your problem is based in fear that other citizens will exercise their Constitutional rights....

 

[Suburban Jedi]

So you agree - when one lies to the "nephesh" they are lying to the very core of that being. Then the Holy Spirit has to be a person, a being.

The nephesh itself is BEING,which resides in a person. When the person (or sacrificial animal cf Lev 17:11) died, it's nephesh was separated from the body. I don't think they conceived of it is not a different person or being.

 

[Logicman]

The nephesh itself is BEING,which resides in a person. It is not a different person or being.

Well, the scriptural evidence in the OT and NT show the Holy Spirit is a person.

Now, what do you make of Jesus as Jehovah (note Post # 60)?

 

[Suburban Jedi]

I agree the Holy Spirit IS a person, the very life essence (nephesh) of God. I think the way the Hebrews envisioned would be like if someone stated "They stared straight into my soul".The very core of that person -- their nephesh -- is that person him or herself at which the others are staring. The soul is not a different person altogether.In fact I think it's interesting to note that the English/Latin "spirit" is also derived from "breath",just like the Hebrew nephesh.

As for the post about Jesus being Jehovah --without going through all of the examples --your main arguments center around John,which I concede has a High Christology.But I find the lack of divine proclamations in the earlier gospels casts doubt on claims of Jesus' divinity. The others I think are kind of taking the passages out of their immediate literary contexts and then applying them--with their later Christian theology -- to texts from the Hebrew Bible.

For example Yahweh is referred to as the "only Rock", yet Tyre is referred to as a rock (Ez 13 I think),and Peter is referred to as a "rock"(hence his nickname).

 

[Logicman]

I agree the Holy Spirit IS a person, the very life essence (nephesh) of God. I think the way the Hebrews envisioned would be like if someone stated "They stared straight into my soul".The very core of that person -- their nephesh -- is that person him or herself at which the others are staring. The soul is not a different person altogether.In fact I think it's interesting to note that the English/Latin "spirit" is also derived from "breath",just like the Hebrew nephesh.

As for the post about Jesus being Jehovah --without going through all of the examples --your main arguments center around John,which I concede has a High Christology.But I find the lack of divine proclamations in the earlier gospels casts doubt on claims of Jesus' divinity. The others I think are kind of taking the passages out of their immediate literary contexts and then applying them--with their later Christian theology -- to texts from the Hebrew Bible.

For example Yahweh is referred to as the "only Rock", yet Tyre is referred to as a rock (Ez 13 I think),and Peter is referred to as a "rock"(hence his nickname).

Peter was a "little rock." In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Peter's name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."

As for Jesus, the deity of Jesus is seen in all four Gospels. For instance, in Mark 14 where Jesus is seen walking on the water we read:

25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. 27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

The actual Greek in Mark 14:27 is "ego eimi" - I am. It is "I am" walking on the water.

Elsewhere in the Gospels Jesus calls himself the "Lord of the Sabbath" (the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath). Only God is Lord of the Sabbath.

Then, we have the following from various Gospels:

He is Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23).
He is omnipotent over disease. (Matthew 8:1-4; Luke 4:39)
He is omnipotent over demons. (Matthew 8:16-17; Luke 4:35)
He is omnipotent over nature. ((Matthew 8:26)
He is omnipotent over death. (Luke 7:14-15; John 11:25)
He is omniscient, knowing the hearts of the Pharisees. (Matthew 12:25; Luke 5:22; 6:8; 7:39-40)
He knew the thoughts of the scribes. (Matthew 9:3-4)
He is omnipresent. (Matthew 18:20; 28:20)
20. He was worshiped as God by the angels (Hebrews 1:6); worshiped as God by the wise men (Matthew 2:2); worshiped as God by the shepherds (Luke 2:15); worshiped as God by a ruler (Matthew 9:18); worshiped as God by Thomas (John 20:28); worshiped as God by the apostles (Matthew 14:33;28:9)
He forgives sins. (Mark 2:5)
He saves (only God saves). Matthew 18:11 (Righterreport.com)

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Peter was a "little rock." In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Peter's name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."

As for Jesus, the deity of Jesus is seen in all four Gospels. For instance, in Mark 14 where Jesus is seen walking on the water we read:

25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. 27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

The actual Greek in Mark 14:27 is "ego eimi" - I am. It is "I am" walking on the water.

Elsewhere in the Gospels Jesus calls himself the "Lord of the Sabbath" (the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath). Only God is Lord of the Sabbath.

Then, we have the following from various Gospels:

He is Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23).
He is omnipotent over disease. (Matthew 8:1-4; Luke 4:39)
He is omnipotent over demons. (Matthew 8:16-17; Luke 4:35)
He is omnipotent over nature. ((Matthew 8:26)
He is omnipotent over death. (Luke 7:14-15; John 11:25)
He is omniscient, knowing the hearts of the Pharisees. (Matthew 12:25; Luke 5:22; 6:8; 7:39-40)
He knew the thoughts of the scribes. (Matthew 9:3-4)
He is omnipresent. (Matthew 18:20; 28:20)
20. He was worshiped as God by the angels (Hebrews 1:6); worshiped as God by the wise men (Matthew 2:2); worshiped as God by the shepherds (Luke 2:15); worshiped as God by a ruler (Matthew 9:18); worshiped as God by Thomas (John 20:28); worshiped as God by the apostles (Matthew 14:33;28:9)
He forgives sins. (Mark 2:5)
He saves (only God saves). Matthew 18:11 (Righterreport.com)

Yes, I agree, he wasn't saying Peter was God. My point was that these passages must be read within their immediate literary contexts. I used Peter as an example of why we have to do that to avoid warping the meaning of particular passages.

But let's address a few of your other points.

Mark 14:27 -- Jesus was identifying he was there, for them not to be afraid. He wasn't answering an interrogative about whether or not he is divine. My stepson has night terrors, and sometimes he gets confused and afraid, and I have to announce who I am. I think you're not paying attention to the immediate context.

Isaiah 7:14 -- Here's a biggee,one that is taken so completely out of context (by Matthew and other Christians) I kinda find it annoying (Sorry TBH). The story is about Isaiah meeting Ahaz,and telling Ahaz to ask for a sign. Ahaz refuses,so Isaiah prophecies the birth of HIS son,not Jesus. "Immanuel" is what is called a theophoric name. In ancient Israel and Near East, children were often given names invoking deities. Ashurbanipal for example uses Assur's name. Ramesses uses Ra's name. Hezekiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc use Yahweh's name. Ezekiel, Daniel, Michael, etc use El. Elijah uses both El and Yahweh. It does not mean "Immanuel" is God incarnate.

As for being Omniscient, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 Jesus does not "know the hour, only the Father knows".

As for raising the dead, both Elijah and Elisha do that.

Regarding places where Jesus was "worshiped" I think this ignores that "proskyneo" simply means "prostrate". While it can mean worship,dignitaries (such as the High Priest) were accorded the same homage,and the same word was used to describe their action.

All in all, I find the central problem here (called the Synoptic Problem by scholars)is that we have two totally different views of Jesus, and except for a few events, two totally different stories--one by John and one by the Synoptic authors. It's kinda like having three biographies ofAbraham Lincoln, yet three fail tomention he was President. If Jesus was running around loudly proclaiming his divinity (John's "I Am"statements),why didn't any of them mention at least one?

For these reasons and others, I think John represents a different theological track of early Christianity quite different from the theology of the synoptics.

 

[Logicman]

Yes, I agree, he wasn't saying Peter was God. My point was that these passages must be read within their immediate literary contexts. I used Peter as an example of why we have to do that to avoid warping the meaning of particular passages.

But let's address a few of your other points.

Mark 14:27 -- Jesus was identifying he was there, for them not to be afraid. He wasn't answering an interrogative about whether or not he is divine. My stepson has night terrors, and sometimes he gets confused and afraid, and I have to announce who I am. I think you're not paying attention to the immediate context.

Jesus said he was "I AM" (eeo eimi - the same as John 8:58).

Isaiah 7:14 -- Here's a biggee,one that is taken so completely out of context (by Matthew and other Christians) I kinda find it annoying (Sorry TBH). The story is about Isaiah meeting Ahaz,and telling Ahaz to ask for a sign. Ahaz refuses,so Isaiah prophecies the birth of HIS son,not Jesus. "Immanuel" is what is called a theophoric name. In ancient Israel and Near East, children were often given names invoking deities. Ashurbanipal for example uses Assur's name. Ramesses uses Ra's name. Hezekiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc use Yahweh's name. Ezekiel, Daniel, Michael, etc use El. Elijah uses both El and Yahweh. It does not mean "Immanuel" is God incarnate.

Make a number of errors in that paragraph. (1) The prophecy isn't for Ahaz himself anymore, or for Isaiah it's for the House of David (7;13). (2) No one in the Old Testament fulfills that prophecy. There is no one who rises to the level of the description of Immanuel in Isaiah chapter 8. (3) The son can't be Isaiah's, because he sure wasn’t born of a young maiden or virgin, since his mother had already been ridden for years like Secretariat and had already produced one son.

As for raising the dead, both Elijah and Elisha do that.

Elijah and Elisha never raised themselves from the dead, but Jesus did: "Destroy this temple (Jesus speaking of his own body), and in three days I will raise it up."

All in all, I find the central problem here (called the Synoptic Problem by scholars)is that we have two totally different views of Jesus, and except for a few events, two totally different stories--one by John and one by the Synoptic authors. It's kinda like having three biographies ofAbraham Lincoln, yet three fail tomention he was President. If Jesus was running around loudly proclaiming his divinity (John's "I Am"statements),why didn't any of them mention at least one?

For these reasons and others, I think John represents a different theological track of early Christianity quite different from the theology of the synoptics.

Nope. Here's another one from Matthew and Luke: "Then everyone will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory." Who is the Son of Man?

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.”

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Jesus said he was "I AM" (eeo eimi - the same as John 8:58).

John's I am statements are specific claims. This is just Jesus calming the nerves of jittery fishermen. Context matters

Make a number of errors in that paragraph. (1) The prophecy isn't for Ahaz himself anymore, or for Isaiah it's for the House of David (7;13). (2) No one in the Old Testament fulfills that prophecy. There is no one who rises to the level of the description of Immanuel in Isaiah chapter 8. (3) The son can't be Isaiah's, because he sure wasn’t born of a young maiden or virgin, since his mother had already been ridden for years like Secretariat and had already produced one son.

The claim that the prophecy is not just for Ahaz is taking the passage out ofcontext. In fact, the passage makes itclear the prophecy was for the immediate future because The son will be old enough to eat curds and honey when the kings opposing Ahaz are defeated. Generally, the prophecy is taken by Jews to refer to Hezekiah. Kings often had more than one theophoric name.

Elijah and Elisha never raised themselves from the dead, but Jesus did: "Destroy this temple (Jesus speaking of his own body), and in three days I will raise it up."

None of the synoptics say Jesus raised himself.In fact Acts 2 says: "4 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him." Note the Jesus here is acted upon,rather than having that power of his own accord.

Nope. Here's another one from Matthew and Luke: "Then everyone will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory." Who is the Son of Man?

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.”

The Messiah is the Son of Man. There's nothing in Matthew or Daniel to indicate the Messiah is God Incarnate.Son of Man is hardly a divine title, and more accurately is translated as "Son of Adam" (Adam =Man in Hebrew and Aramaic,and is kind of a pun in the Genesis narrative;Adam comes from Adamah or 'dirt')

 

[Logicman]

John's I am statements are specific claims. This is just Jesus calming the nerves of jittery fishermen. Context matters

Jesus said it was "I am". He controls the weather too.

The claim that the prophecy is not just for Ahaz is taking the passage out ofcontext. In fact, the passage makes itclear the prophecy was for the immediate future because The son will be old enough to eat curds and honey when the kings opposing Ahaz are defeated. Generally, the prophecy is taken by Jews to refer to Hezekiah. Kings often had more than one theophoric name.

The prophecy could not have referred to Hezekiah. Hezekiah was already nine years old when Ahaz began to reign (2 Kings 17:1; 18:1-2). To then prophesy about a future birth for a son of Ahaz or Isaiah who was already living at the time the prophecy was given, is thus one of the more absurd contentions noted. There's just no fulfillment for the prophecy at any time in the OT.

None of the synoptics say Jesus raised himself.In fact Acts 2 says: "4 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him." Note the Jesus here is acted upon,rather than having that power of his own accord.

Jesus is God, so it fits.

The Messiah is the Son of Man. There's nothing in Matthew or Daniel to indicate the Messiah is God Incarnate.Son of Man is hardly a divine title, and more accurately is translated as "Son of Adam" (Adam =Man in Hebrew and Aramaic,and is kind of a pun in the Genesis narrative;Adam comes from Adamah or 'dirt')

So, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, why did the pharisees condemn him? From Mark 14:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy."

So, why did the high priest accuse Jesus of blasphemy if Jesus were just a mere man as you contend?

As for the Jewish Messiah, the following article shows why the Jews made a mistake in thinking Jesus was not the Messiah:

https://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/

 

[RAMOSS]

If Jesus is not God but "a" god as JW's claim, what does that say about them? It says that they are either practicing polytheism or have put their hopes in a mere mortal. Both are antithetical to scripture. I've asked Elvira several times how the Messiah can be called Almighty God and Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 but, of course, they have no answer. How can the son (the Messiah) be the Father? He can't unless they are the same entity.

The truth is that JW was simply cooked up by somebody in the 1870's and sold to people either poorly versed in scripture or totally ignorant of it. Since then, they've become more sophisticated and will provide you with endless convoluted scripture references to the point where the untutored think such a volume of "knowledge" must be legitimate. It isn't.

When it comes to Isaiah 9:6, those are the titles that have been given to Hezekiah. Hezekiah literally means 'God is our strength) (i.e. mighty God). Royal titles for Hezekiah have nothing to do with a messiah to come, but rather it is Isaiah flattering his patron.
In the Jewish culture of the time , there were two 'anointed ones'. One was the King, who was anointed in the Temple by the High Priest at the start of his reign, and the other was the high priest, who was anointed in a ceremony every year

Here is some infomraiton about Isaiah 9:6 to show it's not about a future messiah but ratherit's about Hezeiah https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/who-is-the-child-in-isaiah-95-6/.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I've just only seen that thread, "If Jesus Is God" - now locked.
The video (by the Jehovah's Witnesses), has 46 questions to ask of Trinitarians.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/336890-if-jesus-god.html





No, Trinitarians are not wrong. Let's try to answer them.



1. If the Trinity is a Bible-teaching, then why does the Bible consistently identify God by singular person pronouns: I, Me, He, Him....instead of We, Us or Them.




Whoever came up with that question, must've forgotten what God has stated in the Book of Genesis.


Genesis 1

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.



The concept of the Trinity is very much given in that statement - Three in One. Take note that the following statement after He used the plural forms - "So God created mankind in HIS OWN image, in the image of GOD, he created them - they (us and our), are all referred to as that One God.


Another time God used the term "us."


Genesis 11
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”



Those are clearly stated. We may not fully understand the Trinity, but the concept of three-in-one is quite clear.


The first question in that video is wrong. God did indeed use the plural terms "us," and "our."


May I throw this question to JW:

Why would God use the terms "us" and "our?" Who was He speaking to?
He couldn't have been be referring to angels - nowhere in the Bible does it say that angels were created in the image and likeness of God! Angels are created beings - they're not CO-CREATORS of God.

"more than one" isn't always 3. Have you ever found specific evidence for 3 in the OT? What do the Jews think? It's their book.

Jesus said quite a few things per the NT that sound odd to be coming from God...

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Jesus said it was "I am". He controls the weather too.

So even if Jesus said "I am hungry", that's a divine claim? That's stretching it,especially since the immediate context doesn't provide any basis for that claim.

The prophecy could not have referred to Hezekiah. Hezekiah was already nine years old when Ahaz began to reign (2 Kings 17:1; 18:1-2). To then prophesy about a future birth for a son of Ahaz or Isaiah who was already living at the time the prophecy was given, is thus one of the more absurd contentions noted. There's just no fulfillment for the prophecy at any time in the OT.

Fair point about Hezekiah.My apologies I'll have to look into it again. But my basic point about context and timelines remains -- it doesn't refer to Jesus.

He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. -- Is 7:15-16.

The two lands mentioned are Aram ruled by Rezin and Israel ruled by Pekah. If the boy was "eating curds and honey", that meant he was a youngster c 720 BC. Hence,it can't be Jesus. And Immanuel is merely a theophoric name, just like Hezekiah means "Strength of God", but he wasn't able to throw an entire universe together. He barely was able to hold out against Assyria.

Jesus is God, so it fits.



So, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, why did the pharisees condemn him? From Mark 14:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy."

So, why did the high priest accuse Jesus of blasphemy if Jesus were just a mere man as you contend?

As for the Jewish Messiah, the following article shows why the Jews made a mistake in thinking Jesus was not the Messiah:

https://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/

I'm not doubting that Jesus was claiming to be Messiah. It wasn't an uncommon thing in late Second Temple Judaism,and some of them were executed as well. I'm saying that the messiah was not a divine figure. In fact, it was a rather fluid concept, as even Cyrus King of Persia is called "Yahweh's Messiah" (L'Yahwe Mashiayach) in Isaiah 45:1.

While it was not strictly "blaspheny" to claim oneself to be Messiah, the Sadducees -- dependent on Rome's protection and patronage, were rather skittish about peopleclaiming to be sent by God to liberate them. Not to mention, the Jewish concept of Kumrah (making a 'Hedge around the Torah") starts around this time, when laws are interpreted to be even more restrictive than what they actually say. So even a messianic claim could be construed as blasphemy