The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Theophilus

  I have been curious why the JW's and other cults claim that the Bible does not support the notion of the Christ as divine (God). Can anyone offer an explanation? My reading of the texts brings me to that conclusion. There are a number of outright claims to it, as well as some that take actual research.

  Take for example Titus 2...
  You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,
  while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

  I'm not putting a hook in the water to see who bites (like some have been known to do on this board) I really want to understand this.
• 

  Frenchy

  Titus 2:13—
  NWT--“…while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,”
  ASV –“looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
  KJV—“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
  ---
  The above sampling of different renderings of Titus 2:13 should be sufficient to impress upon one that the NIV’s rendering is not the only possible understanding of the Greek text. The term ‘savior’ is sometimes applied to God and sometimes applied to Christ. That they share this same title or role is not proof that they are one and the same.
  It’s important to remember also that ‘divine’ and ‘God’ are not necessarily the same thing. One of the definitions of ‘divine’ is: “godlike, superhuman”. JW’s believe that Christ is godlike in that he is a spirit and dwells in heaven and he is therefore superhuman.
  The trinity doctrine as professed by the Catholic Church states:
  

  …that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent—From the Catholic Encyclopedia

  
  JW’s believe that there is but one God and that his name is Jehovah. (or close to it) It is their contention that He is the Father and creator of all things and that he alone is omniscient, omnipotent, and without beginning. They believe that Jesus is the son of God who had an existence in heaven as God’s first creation and who later became a man on earth and died for the redemption of mankind. He was later raised from the dead and given a position in heaven second only to the Father himself. They believe that the holy spirit is God’s active force or power by which he accomplishes all things. I share those beliefs.
  That’s it in a nutshell. I would be happy to address any (I’m sure you have some) comments or questions concerning this as well as a consideration of any of the many scriptures used by trinitarians as ‘proof’ of the trinity.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  AhHah

  Theo,

  Please don't misunderstand this question as disrespectful or irreverent, but as I read your post, I was wondering why "proving" the divinity of Christ is perceived by many to be important. I was often questioned about it when preaching the JW doctrines to people. Maybe that was because so few "Christian" religions do not believe in the divinity of Christ or in the Trinity (which are not technically the same) and therefore the curiosity about it.

  My point is, how important is it, really? Is it about salvation -- that if one believes that Christ was created by God and not God himself that the individual will not be saved? Does the Bible say that somewhere? Christ is quoted as saying that his followers would worship according to truth (John 4:24?) -- and that God's word is truth (John 17:17?). But what if after genuine effort to understand the Bible, there are still legitimate questions about doctrinal understanding? There are many very convincing Scriptural arguments against the divinity of Christ, depending on one's perspective. Although, everyone I ever read them to was still not convinced that Christ was not God himself -- that there were other (trinitarian) ways to understand those scriptues -- and they may ultimately be right -- Christ might be God -- I cannot "prove" it either way. Does it really matter? If so, then why does not God himself make it obvious to every sincere seeker of truth, especially if God is going to judge people's worship accordingly?

  Personally, I have a hard time believing that God will judge us on the basis of doctrine in any religion or lack thereof. I believe that actions (not "works" but, rather, how one lives one's life, what one really stands for) and the heart are what is important. Of course, I can't prove that!

  If two Christians have led similar lives of charity and good-will, and one believes in the divinity of Christ and one does not, what will be the difference? If both are saved then why try to "prove" one's point of view?

  I am sincerely asking for your comments on this. I respect your Christian attitude and apparently good motives for posting here. I welcome all of your posts and I look forward to your reply.

  Edited by - AhHah on 6 November 2000 17:45:18
• 

  Frenchy

  Theo, did you want to discuss this?

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Theophilus

  Sure. I've been neglecting it due to my busy schedule. I'll try to post more soon. Thanks for the responses though.
  Incidentally, Have you studied the NWT? I've been doing some research and have found that in a number of places, without support from the original texts, the translators have inserted, mischaracterized, and in other ways altered the reading of several scriptures. Particularly those that deal with the diety of Jesus. In my opinion, this has been done not with the intent to accurately render the scriptures, but rather out of theological neccessity from a pre-concieved point of view.
  More to come...
• 

  Frenchy

  Theo:
  Okay, I look forward to your posts.
  

  Incidentally, Have you studied the NWT? I've been doing some research and have found that in a number of places, without support from the original texts, the translators have inserted, mischaracterized, and in other ways altered the reading of several scriptures.

  ... Having been a witness most of my life I am quite familiar with the NWT. It's been my observation that ALL translations are biased and that there is absolutely no way to prevent this. It's the very nature of the process of translation. That's why I use several.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Sandgroper

  Greetings Theo:

  I too will looking forward to anything you have to say in regard to JWs altering the meaning of the original text when translating the NWT.

  Could it be possible that the NWT is 'different', not 'wrong'?

  Agape,
  Sandgroper.
• 

  AhHah

  Theo and SandGroper,

  One of the most glaring evidences of the non-trinitarian bias of the NW translation is their insistence on translating the Greek words "kyrios" (Lord) and "theos" (God) in the New Testament as the Hebrew name for God (Jehovah).

  There are only four New Testament references to the Hebrew name "Jehovah", where the Greek word "Allelouia" (Hallelujah) meaning "Praise Jah (or Yah)" is used (Rev. 19: 1,3,4, and 6). The NW translators' insistence on translating the Greek word "kyrios" 227 times and "theos" 10 times as "Jehovah" is based on a presumption that the original New Testament writings must have used the Hebrew tetragrammaton ('YHWH' or 'JHVH') instead of "kyrios" or "theos". This cannot be proven, of course. Because some early fragments of Greek Septuagint manuscripts of Hebrew (Old Testament) scripture preserved the tetragrammaton in a few places where it is found in the Old Testament, their presumption is that the original Greek scriptures must have been written using the Hebrew name for God, instead of Lord or God. Yet, none of the earliest copies of the apostolic writings in existence (such as the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 - containing fragments of nine of the apostle Paul's letters) contain even one use of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, even when quoting Hebrew scriptures where the tetragrammaton was used.

  So why did the NW translators so brazenly dare to translate the name "Jehovah" without any direct evidence or justification for doing so?

  This is consistent with their insistence on de-emphasizing Christ in their doctrines and practices, and emphasizing the focus on Jehovah (Jehovah's Witnesses) and his dealings with the Israelites and the Mosaic Law Covenant. Their pseudo-Christian religion attempts to preserve the same kind of Jewish enslavement to their law code under their Pharisaical attempt to legislate Christian doctrines and practices.

  It is no wonder that the members of Jehovah's Witnesses do not enjoy the precious and refreshing sense of liberation and freedom from enslavement that Christ offered his followers. Instead, they suffer under it, just as did the Jews under the oppression of their Talmud and their inflexible and rigid attempts at piety.

  Edited by - AhHah on 17 November 2000 11:54:48
• 

  Carmel

  Theo,

  Consider if you have a highly polished mirror and you hold it in such a manner that you see the full glare of the noon-day sun in that piece of glass (silicone). You would be very correct in one sense saying as you point to the mirror "there is the sun". At the same time you would be equally correct in denouncing this as the "sun" but simply a very accurate reflection thereof. What you may or may not engage is that the invisible phenomena called "rays" and the unblemished nature of that mirror combine to give you the best understanding (visually) of the "real thing" without it being the literal fire ball in the sky.

  My point is, Jesus, as that highly polished mirror, made of the same humane essense as you and I, through the effects of the "holy spirit" reflected perfectly to us the will of His Father as He came in the "station of the son". He was able to, as the anthropomorphic analogy would allow, more accurately reflect the will of the Father than anyone else at the time, even His announcer, John The Baptist.

  So Jesus could be called the "lord" or whatever other appelation, without it meaning that He was literally "god".

  just my $.25 which is worth one shekel
• 

  Frenchy

  Carmel: Very well put.
  AhHah
  I’m responding to your post although it was addressed to Theo and Sandgroper . If you prefer that I don’t respond to comments which are directed to someone specifically then I will honor that in the future as I have no wish to cause any disturbance.
  

  One of the most glaring evidences of the non-trinitarian bias of the NW translation is their insistence on translating the Greek words "kyrios" (Lord) and "theos" (God) in the New Testament as the Hebrew name for God (Jehovah).

  Of course one would have to ask why it is that trinitarian biased translations substitute “LORD” for “Jehovah” in those passages where the tetragrammaton is clearly present? Is that not bias?
  

  There are only four New Testament references to the Hebrew name "Jehovah", where the Greek word "Allelouia" (Hallelujah) meaning "Praise Jah (or Yah)" is used (Rev. 19: 1,3,4, and 6).

  So, another question. Why do the trinitarian biased translations not translate THESE instances of the Hebrew name as “Jehovah”? Is that not bias?
  

  So why did the NW translators so brazenly dare to translate the name "Jehovah" without any direct evidence or justification for doing so?

  The first two questions still stand. Why do the trinitarian biased translations "dare" to SUBSTITUTE “LORD” for the tetragrammaton? Is that any less of a transgression than what the NWT has done? Is that not bias?
  The truth of the matter is that, as I stated previously, translations are by nature, biased. There can be no translation without some interpretation. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language is very much aware of this. That is why several translations must be used. And that is why no single scripture can serve to settle the matter.
  

  It is no wonder that the members of Jehovah's Witnesses do not enjoy the precious and refreshing sense of liberation and freedom from enslavement that Christ offered his followers. [/quote] I recognize this as your personal assessment of JW’s. I will not argue your viewpoint of this inasmuch as you have a right to it. But inasmuch as it is made in this context I feel obliged to state here that I do “enjoy a precious and refreshing sense of liberation and freedom from enslavement that Christ offered his followers“ while at the same time recognizing Christ to be the son of God and not God himself.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  Edited by - Frenchy on 19 November 2000 21:29:45