NWT Contradictions on the Identity of Christ.

roflcopter

So in doing some research into the identity of Christ we all know that the NWT quotes John 1:1 as:

"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."

This is to say that the "word" is not God, but Jesus Christ who is "a god."

Yet lets rewind a little bit here in our copies of the NWT and go to Isiah 43:10:

"10 “YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” "

Here god states his servant whom he has chose (Jesus Christ???) is the same One. Before Jehovah and After Jehovah there is no other god, nor savior.

Now a friend of mine I showed this too said... "so what in one scripture he is talking about god as the name, in the other as the title. It doesn't show anything as far as them being the same person"

I beg to differ, what do you think?

Narkissos

Here god states his servant whom he has chose (Jesus Christ???) is the same One.

I think you are misreading Isaiah here but the NWT does not help (for its addition of "even" and the rendering of 'ani hu' as "I am the same One").

The "servant" here parallels either "you" or the "witnesses".

Either: You are my witnesses, as is the Servant which I have chosen...

or: You are my witnesses, you are the Servant which I have chosen...

The "Servant" of Yhwh in Isaiah 40--55 is sometimes identified to Israel, and sometimes distinct as a past or contemporary figure (hence not directly referring to Christ, even though the NT centuries later applies some of those texts to Jesus).

Incidentally the formula which the NWT renders as "I am the same One" means "I am He," and its Greek translation egô eimi, "I am" (without a predicate) serves as a characteristic self-designation of Jesus in the Gospel of John.

roflcopter

OK regardless of the servant part of the scripture. What of the part where he says there is no other god before or after him, yet the WT says that Jesus is a God... especially in John 1:1 where the word (Jesus?) is a god?

Narkissos

Yes, that one is a Trinitarian classic.

It is only problematic (or meaningful, depending on your perspective) if you assume that the book of Isaiah and the Gospel of John have to agree (which I don't). The strict monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah, indeed, rules out any other god. But the argument in John 10:33ff ("you are gods") suggests that it is not exactly the Fourth Gospel's perspective.

Woodsman

I used to carry some WTS habits of thinking the books of the Bible must harmonize and if the WTS's view was not in harmony with another scripture then, aha, they were wrong. Now I realize the books of the Bible are not in harmony nor do do they view God from the same perspective. Those who try to present them as harmonious end up "forgetting" about certain verses and repeating others over and over again. They also use tortured logic and sloppy scholastic practices.

Pubsinger

This may be helpful.

The Trinity doctrine doesn't, never has done and never will teach that the Son and the Father are the same person.

I find that this is the crux of all JW refutations of the Trinity. However they are arguing at cross purposes.

This may help

www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_Father.htm

yaddayadda

The word 'God' has shades of meaning. The simple defense is that there is a scriptural distinction that can be shown between the one true Almighty God, the God of Israel Jehovah, and all other gods, even Jesus. Even Israel's judges are called 'gods' in the OT, a point Jesus noted. So Jehovah saying that before or after him there is no other God means that only he will forever be the 'only true God', as Jesus himself acknowledged at John 17:3. Rather than Jesus indicating he was the one true God along with the Father (a contradiction in itself), any apparent allusions to Jesus as 'God' should be read as Jesus acting as a divine agent, a representative Son sent by his Father Jehovah. This is how any OT titles or roles applied to Jesus that were originally ascribed to Jehovah should be intepreted. Eg, Emmanual meaning 'God is with us' means Jehovah is with Israel through Jesus, not literally as him.

aikichristian

Ancient Greek, which is the same greek in the Bible, does not have indefinite articles (a, an, the). So, there are some cases where it is necessary to insert an indefinite article for the sentence to make sense.

The NWT puts forth a controversial translation of John 1:1 with "a god" because it has always been translated as "God". The NWT parts with traditional translations and modern translations with thier Jn 1:1. The NWT translation of Jn 1:1 completely changes the meaning of the sentence and alters Christ's identity.

History points out that John 1:1 has always been translated as "God". Translation afer translation, version to verson, century to century, it has been the same...."the Word was God". I don't know why the NWT wants to break so far off from tradition. I don't know where they suddenly thought it was okay or correct to insert "a" where it didn't exist before.

Additionally, why didn't they make the additional distinction between Christ and God by using the name "Jehovah" instead?

Like this:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Jehovah, and the Word was a god."

wouldn't that be clearer? That is what the JWs really mean anyways. They've changed so much of the translations with the NWT then why don't they just "clarify" that verse further?

NWT Contradictions on the Identity of Christ.

Share this