Why do Jehovahs witnesses belive in two Gods?

[Donald Diamond]

15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Yes, the formatting was a little bit messed up. I'll just cut and paste to answer you. 

 

-God is not the fruit of David’s loins – that is ridiculous.  The prophecy in 2 Sam 7 is about a human son.  Jehovah (YHWH) says “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”.

So are you saying that Jesus was only human? Colossians 2:9 says otherwise. Also look at Jesus explanation to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:42-46 on this very subject. 

 

-Well, his opposers claimed it was what he said, not how he said it, so your premise is false.

According to scripture (and your own admission) “Son of God” does not mean “God”.   As you

pointed out, the Jews were sons of God.  Angels are probably called sons of God in Job, Adam

was son of God – in no case does “son of God” mean “God Himself”.   You have no scriptural

basis for your claim.  So my understanding of the term “Son of God” comes from scripture,   Why would God use the phrase towards humans, if it is a term that means God Himself?

It IS how He said it. He claimed to be THE Son of God, meaning to come directly from God and not a son of God as the Jews were. This would be His claim to be of the same nature as God, the form of a  cat begets a cat, the form of a dog begets a dog, the form of God begets God. You do not get a camel from a hippo. Just as you are human, so too were your parents. Jesus was begotten of God, and thus the same form/substance/nature, God. Does that make Him the Father? Nope. My scriptural support comes from many places and we can get into each one if you'd like, but I have given you Matthew 26 and Jesus affirms that He is THE Son of God, THE Christ. 

 

-The high priest claims this is blasphemy.    Why do you believe this when in the same passage we are told:

John 11:49,50  But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all.  Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."

 

So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him?

 

They wanted false testimony in order to get Jesus killed.  Why do you build your case on the evidence of those who opposed Jesus and were prepared to lie to get him killed.  You have to read the accusations of the Jewish leaders in the light of the plot to kill him.

Matt 26:59  Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,

Matt 12:14  But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

John 7:25,26  Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill?  And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?  (not that this is God!).

Keep reading in your quote of Matthew 26, in verse 60 specifically. It says they did not find this false testimony. They did not find anything to prove their want. Their deeds were being done for what? So they would not lose their place among society (John 11:47&48). It was only at verse 63-66 of Matthew 26 did they find anything that could stick, it was Jesus claim to be of the same nature of God, being THE Son of God. Matthew 12:14 only speaks that the Pharisees were getting nervous and started to think about what they could do to stop Jesus. It doesn't say they had made up any lies or false testimony. Your John 7 reference does nothing but confirm that Jesus is the Christ, you have added what you want it to say with "(not that this is God!)." This is an argument from silence. 

 

-If you reread my post you will see that at John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father” – they put their spin to misrepresent what he said.   As I pointed out, Jesus used the term “My Father” dozens of times with no adverse reaction.  There is nothing blasphemous about calling God “My Father” – it was a trumped up charge.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I've already discussed this above. The fact that Jesus said "My Father" is true, but when did He say this to the Scribes and Pharisees and they not get angry? He said this to the crowds and to the disciples, but the only times He said this to the Pharisees and Jewish leaders they got angry and wanted to kill Him. So it wasn't like the Pharisees and Jewish leaders heard this and dismissed it as you claim, but rather regular people and the disciples heard it most. 

-Again, I believe I have clearly explained the three uses of the term god in scripture.  It can be used a) Of the true God, Jehovah (YHWH),

b) Of false gods

Of representatives of the true God (like Psalm 82, John 1:1, Moses)

I have real problems with formatting this post - so please excuse if disjointed.

D.

 

A representative does not have the fullness of deity, nor is the representative an exact image of God. (Colossians 2:9 & Colossians 1:15) So where does Jesus fit in your three? What other representative in the Bible have these qualities? 

 

 

Having made such a mess of formatting, I will not attempt to cut your post up to address your response.

I showed from scripture that the term Son of God does not mean "of the same nature as God".

Neither Col 2:9 not Matt 22 state that Jesus is God. Try reading these passages without trinitarian blinkers (I don’t mean to be offensive). I agree with you that Matt 26 states that Jesus was the son of God, the Christ. That is not the same as being God Himself. When I was a trinitarian, I was told that is was, but when I studied the scriptures I realised it had no basis in scripture.

 

You said:

So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him?

At last – progress. Just as they claimed he broke the Sabbath or cast out devils by Beelzebub.

Matt 26 shows that the leaders were prepared to support false accusations, and John 11:49:50 tells us "Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."

It is spelt out in black and white. Why do you treat Jesus' opposers as if they were genuine believers speaking the truth?

 

Although you say you have addressed it, it remains the fact that:

a) Calling God "My Father" is not blasphemous

b) The opposers claimed that Jesus said "My own father" when he did not.

 

The terms "representative" and "image" mean that it is not the original.

D.

 

[Shiwiii]

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

I showed from scripture that the term Son of God does not mean "of the same nature as God".

Where did you show this? and from what scripture? 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Neither Col 2:9 not Matt 22 state that Jesus is God. Try reading these passages without trinitarian blinkers (I don’t mean to be offensive). I agree with you that Matt 26 states that Jesus was the son of God, the Christ. That is not the same as being God Himself.

Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. What does that mean to you? Does it mean that there is something of God that did not dwell in Jesus? please explain. 

Jesus' claim of being THE Son of God, means He has the same nature, is of the same substance. You cannot get a zebra from a duck, they are different in nature. 

22 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

At last – progress. Just as they claimed he broke the Sabbath or cast out devils by Beelzebub.

Jesus DID break the Jews Sabbath, but He did not break God's Sabbath. Big difference, but one that helps us see clearly the mind of the Jewish leaders. Each time Jesus said that He was the Son of God to the Jewish leaders/Pharisees and they got angry. Why? You may think it was a false anger to trump op a charge against Him, but you yourself agreed that they could not find any false testimony. So while they might have wanted Jesus gone, they couldn't do it with false testimony or false witnesses, so it had to be true testimony. Jesus statement was true and according to Jewish law, not God's law, this would be considered blasphemy. Does your Bible reference Leviticus 24:16 from John 19:7? Consider why it does. What reason, just because of the word blasphemy? nope, or it would be referenced most other places.

 

22 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Matt 26 shows that the leaders were prepared to support false accusations, and John 11:49:50 tells us "Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."

It is spelt out in black and white. Why do you treat Jesus' opposers as if they were genuine believers speaking the truth?

I don't think you are grasping the meaning of what this is saying. Why would the whole nation perish? Because they would lose their position, as in verse 48: 

If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Like I just showed above, they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true. Also, notice how the account is written in John 5:18. This is all written by John, he is not recording a statement by anyone when he wrote this. He was recording the facts, inspired too I might add. 

22 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Although you say you have addressed it, it remains the fact that:

a) Calling God "My Father" is not blasphemous

b) The opposers claimed that Jesus said "My own father" when he did not.

 

The terms "representative" and "image" mean that it is not the original.

a) According to the Jewish law it is, because it is claiming the same nature as God. That is why it is blasphemous. Lev 24:16

b) This is not even a point actually. Its like saying Jesus didn't speak English so the Bible I use is wrong. 

I never said Jesus was the Father, but Scripture says that Jesus has the fullness of deity (all that makes God God) in Himself. If you look in the mirror who's image do you see? If Jesus is the exact image of God, then Jesus is what God looks like. Like I said what other representative has the qualities that Jesus has? None, so He does not fit into that category of your three and He doesn't fit into the false god category either.   

 

[Evacuated]

14 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true.

Is this discussion saying that Jesus was convicted for breaking the Mosaic Law on blasphemy by telling the truth about himself?

[Donald Diamond]

9 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Where did you show this? and from what scripture? 

 

Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. What does that mean to you? Does it mean that there is something of God that did not dwell in Jesus? please explain. 

Jesus' claim of being THE Son of God, means He has the same nature, is of the same substance. You cannot get a zebra from a duck, they are different in nature. 

Jesus DID break the Jews Sabbath, but He did not break God's Sabbath. Big difference, but one that helps us see clearly the mind of the Jewish leaders. Each time Jesus said that He was the Son of God to the Jewish leaders/Pharisees and they got angry. Why? You may think it was a false anger to trump op a charge against Him, but you yourself agreed that they could not find any false testimony. So while they might have wanted Jesus gone, they couldn't do it with false testimony or false witnesses, so it had to be true testimony. Jesus statement was true and according to Jewish law, not God's law, this would be considered blasphemy. Does your Bible reference Leviticus 24:16 from John 19:7? Consider why it does. What reason, just because of the word blasphemy? nope, or it would be referenced most other places.

 

I don't think you are grasping the meaning of what this is saying. Why would the whole nation perish? Because they would lose their position, as in verse 48: 

If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Like I just showed above, they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true. Also, notice how the account is written in John 5:18. This is all written by John, he is not recording a statement by anyone when he wrote this. He was recording the facts, inspired too I might add. 

a) According to the Jewish law it is, because it is claiming the same nature as God. That is why it is blasphemous. Lev 24:16

b) This is not even a point actually. Its like saying Jesus didn't speak English so the Bible I use is wrong. 

I never said Jesus was the Father, but Scripture says that Jesus has the fullness of deity (all that makes God God) in Himself. If you look in the mirror who's image do you see? If Jesus is the exact image of God, then Jesus is what God looks like. Like I said what other representative has the qualities that Jesus has? None, so He does not fit into that category of your three and He doesn't fit into the false god category either.   

 

As the Jews were sons of God, angels are called sons of God in Job and Adam was son of God (Luke 3:38), I have demonstrated absolutely that son of God does not mean “of the same nature as God”.   

Col 2:9 states that something of God dwells in Christ.  That is very different from what you are claiming.

The Jewish leaders did not make the false distinction between God’s Sabbath and the Jews Sabbath that you suggest.   They were claiming that Jesus broke the Sabbath law of God – otherwise there is no point to their argument.  Of course, he did not – their claims were false.

Your quotation of Lev 24:16 is taken out of context.   The full context shows that it related to reviling God.

Lev 24:10-16   Now an Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel. And the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought in the camp, and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. …..  And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be clear to them.   Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,  "Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.  And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.  Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

 

 

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text.   Jesus was not reviling God.    The problem with your argument is that when the Jewish leaders said: "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." – they were lying.   There is no such law as the Jewish leaders claimed.  More evidence of false witness.

I demonstrated that the high priest wanted Jesus dead – yes?

While the Jewish leaders could not find anyone to bear false witness at that time, I have shown clearly that they were perfectly happy to support it – yes?

John could not have written that Jesus broke the Sabbath.   What is recorded is the claims of Jesus’ opposers.

At John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father”.   This is not an argument about English.  The word “own” (in Greek this would be idios).   Jesus did not use that word – he used the normal adjective “my”  – it has nothing to do with translation.  Jesus’ opposers had to change it.   It was false witness.     In your church do you regularly stone members who refer to God as “my Father”?    I’d better not join.

D.

[Shiwiii]

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

As the Jews were sons of God, angels are called sons of God in Job and Adam was son of God (Luke 3:38), I have demonstrated absolutely that son of God does not mean “of the same nature as God”

Was Jesus claiming to be another son of God or THE Son of God? There is a difference, even if you want to dismiss it. 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

Col 2:9 states that something of God dwells in Christ.

Yes, it does......ALL that is God dwells within Jesus. The fullness of deity. The word used is pan or pas (G3956) and its meaning is all or whole, meaning completeness when used in conjunction with pleroma (G4138). 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

The Jewish leaders did not make the false distinction between God’s Sabbath and the Jews Sabbath that you suggest.   They were claiming that Jesus broke the Sabbath law of God – otherwise there is no point to their argument.  Of course, he did not – their claims were false.

So are you telling me that God required men to not even spit on the ground on the Sabbath because that would be considered plowing, thus "work" ? Really? You do not see a distinction between God's Sabbath and that of the Jewish leaders? That was the whole point of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, to show the Jews the true meaning of it. Not some over the top addition of man's rules upon Gods declaration of rest. 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

your quotation of Lev 24:16 is taken out of context.   The full context shows that it related to reviling God.

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text.   Jesus was not reviling God.    The problem with your argument is that when the Jewish leaders said: "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." – they were lying.   There is no such law as the Jewish leaders claimed.  More evidence of false witness.

Take that up with your Bible writers, I did not put that reference in your Bible, they did. You tell me why. I just pointed it out to you and can see why they did. There is a reason why that is referenced in 99% of Bibles out there at John 19:7. Your argument is not with me on this one. 

 

21 hours ago, Donald Diamond said:

John could not have written that Jesus broke the Sabbath.   What is recorded is the claims of Jesus’ opposers.

Jesus broke the rules of the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath, He did not break the Sabbath. Jesus told them it is alright to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12). 

 

I found out why the formatting is messed up. Once you are done with your post, highlight all of it and select the drop down for size and reduce it to 14 or less. 

Now let us get back to the point of this discussion. Do you believe Jesus is a legitimate God or not? 

[Donald Diamond]

22 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Was Jesus claiming to be another son of God or THE Son of God? There is a difference, even if you want to dismiss it. 

But your argument was that the phrase “son of god” meant God Himself, or “of the same nature as God”.   It clearly does not.

 

Quote

Yes, it does......ALL that is God dwells within Jesus. The fullness of deity. The word used is pan or pas (G3956) and its meaning is all or whole, meaning completeness when used in conjunction with pleroma (G4138). 

I agree with you that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus.  But in that very statement, there is a distinction between God and Jesus.

 

Quote

So are you telling me that God required men to not even spit on the ground on the Sabbath because that would be considered plowing, thus "work" ? Really? You do not see a distinction between God's Sabbath and that of the Jewish leaders? That was the whole point of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, to show the Jews the true meaning of it. Not some over the top addition of man's rules upon Gods declaration of rest. 

Where did I say that Jesus couldn’t even spit on the ground?  I agree that the Pharisees had added traditions to the Sabbath requirements, but the point here is that if John believed and wrote that Jesus broke the Sabbath, he is agreeing with Jesus’ opponents that he was a sinner.    That cannot be true.   John can only be quoting the accusations of Jesus’ enemies.

 

Quote

 

Take that up with your Bible writers, I did not put that reference in your Bible, they did. You tell me why. I just pointed it out to you and can see why they did. There is a reason why that is referenced in 99% of Bibles out there at John 19:7. Your argument is not with me on this one. 

I have no need to take up anything with “Bible writers” - references are put in Bibles for various reasons.    It is your argument that Jesus’ opponents were telling the truth when they said there was a law that required Jesus should die for claiming to be the Son of God.    The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is correct.   As you cannot, the only conclusion is that this was another lie on their part.

 

Quote

Jesus broke the rules of the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath, He did not break the Sabbath. Jesus told them it is alright to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12). 

Absolutely.  Therefore the comment that Jesus broke the Sabbath must have been the Pharisees view - not the Gospel writer.

Quote

I found out why the formatting is messed up. Once you are done with your post, highlight all of it and select the drop down for size and reduce it to 14 or less. 

Thanks for that - hopefully OK now.

Quote

Now let us get back to the point of this discussion. Do you believe Jesus is a legitimate God or not? 

I believe I have explained more than once how I understand the term “god” when used in relation to Jesus (including how he himself used it in John 10 – which was the original question).   I have pointed out that you expressed your question in terms of a false dichotomy (i.e. only allowing one of two answers when there can be more).  This is a debating technique,    So you must see that I am suspicious of you demanding a specific form of words.   Please define what you mean by a “legitimate god” – do you consider Zeus to be a legitimate god?  Dagon?  Baal?  If you mean, is he God (Jehovah) then the answer is no - but I think you already know that.

D.

[Shiwiii]

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I agree with you that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus.  But in that very statement, there is a distinction between God and Jesus.

But all that is God, is in Jesus. You admitted that, but you still want to say that He is not. ok. Do you then think that Jesus has all that is God and then some more of something that is Himself too? Meaning Jesus has more whatever in Him than God does? 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Where did I say that Jesus couldn’t even spit on the ground?  I agree that the Pharisees had added traditions to the Sabbath requirements, but the point here is that if John believed and wrote that Jesus broke the Sabbath, he is agreeing with Jesus’ opponents that he was a sinner.    That cannot be true.   John can only be quoting the accusations of Jesus’ enemies.

You didn't, but it was the point I was trying to make. Jesus broke the Pharisees laws about the Sabbath, that is what John wrote about. Jesus is without sin. It is not an accusation, it is fact, Jesus broke the Pharisees laws, not God's. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I have no need to take up anything with “Bible writers” - references are put in Bibles for various reasons.    It is your argument that Jesus’ opponents were telling the truth when they said there was a law that required Jesus should die for claiming to be the Son of God.    The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is correct.   As you cannot, the only conclusion is that this was another lie on their part.

actually it is on you, because it is referenced in both your Bible and mine, I just pointed it out. You said that there is no way that John would attribute Lev 24:16 to this, however both of our Bibles do. see below

On 5/1/2016 at 10:10 AM, Donald Diamond said:

There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Absolutely.  Therefore the comment that Jesus broke the Sabbath must have been the Pharisees view - not the Gospel writer.

exactly, and that is what the Jewish leaders used to kill Jesus. John just wrote it, not agreed with it. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

Thanks for that - hopefully OK now.

yup, its good now. 

 

1 hour ago, Donald Diamond said:

I believe I have explained more than once how I understand the term “god” when used in relation to Jesus (including how he himself used it in John 10 – which was the original question).   I have pointed out that you expressed your question in terms of a false dichotomy (i.e. only allowing one of two answers when there can be more).  This is a debating technique,    So you must see that I am suspicious of you demanding a specific form of words.   Please define what you mean by a “legitimate god” – do you consider Zeus to be a legitimate god?  Dagon?  Baal?  If you mean, is he God (Jehovah) then the answer is no - but I think you already know that.

What categories are there then? You laid out three, I showed you how Jesus could not fit in two. What more is there? 

No Zeus is not a legitimate god. Neither is Moses, nor Kings, nor anyone according to Isiah 43. God said that there was not one before nor after Him. So if you believe that at John 1:1 Jesus is a god, then what kind of god is He? There really is only two kinds, true and false. True God is YHWH, false is satan, false is Moses, false is the rest. This all hinges on Isiah 43, there is no God other than YHWH. So if you believe that Jesus is a god, and if you believe He is not YHWH, then He is not true god, thus making Him on par with Moses/kings and satan and not fitting into Isiah 43. 

[Gregorio Alberto]

I think this guy (he isn't a witness) explains it well. See him here: 

 

[Shiwiii]

Gregorio, I watched your link and appreciate your contribution to this topic. 

Here are a few things I have a problem with in Mr. Barron's video. First point is that he seems to be implying that the Jews had used the term God rather frequently and thus making the meaning of less importance unless it is considered of YHWH. While on the surface this may sound acceptable, however Jews today and back then reserve God in the utmost importance. There is no evidence to support that the Jews would equate any other gods on par with God, its just not there. Furthermore, the suggestion that the writers of the NT were Jews and wrote from within a Jewish mind frame is unsupported and is actually the opposite of what they actually wrote. The writers of the NT positioned themselves in opposition to the Jews, not aligned. 

Mr. Barron has a short article this very subject on his website, particularly John 5:18&19, and on it he has this to say: 

" Nevertheless, I must address one own point therein, namely, that in 5:19 Jesus provided an answer to those seeking to kill him. Quite simply, Jesus “answered” the Jews not because he wasn’t breaking the Sabbath or making himself equal to God. If this was their understanding they were entirely correct, but they erred in failing to understand he was rightly sanctioned for both and in subjection to God through it all. " -http://www.scripturaltruths.com/