How Would a JW answer this?

[catholicxjw]

In the following two scriptures from Isaiah. Jehovah says that He created the earth and man upon it by Himself with His own hands. That no one else was with Him when He did this. Here is what the New World Translation says:

"11 This is what Jehovah has said, the Holy One of Israel and the Former of him: “Ask me even about the things that are coming concerning my sons; and concerning the activity of my hands YOU people should command me. 12 I myself have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.” -Isaiah 45:11,12

"This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?"-Isaiah 44:24

However, the New World Translation says that the Word (and we believe the Word to be) Jesus created everything.

"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. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." John 1:1-3

Notice how the scripture above says that not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus and yet in Isaiah Jehovah says He did everything with His own hands by Himself. How does one explain this?

In addition, the JWs teach that Jesus is a created being but the scripture above says that not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus. If Jesus is a created being as the JWs teach and not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus, does this mean that the JWs believe that Jesus created Himself?

How would a JW explain this?

Jeff S.

[ishmilchamah]

By adding the (completely unfounded) word "other" into the text to help the reader to properly grasp JW theology. All (other) things where created by Jesus apparently.

[heretic]

Besides what ishmilchamah writes, I think, from looking at the cross references in my NWT, that they also depend heavily on 1 Corinthians 8:6:

'There is actually to us one God, the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.'

They differentiate between 'from whom' and 'through whom', so perhaps they regard Jesus more as a creative 'force' or 'medium' rather than the actual creator. This then disqualifies the need to use the (other) clause in John 1:1-3 because the 'medium' would have had to have been created before everything else.

[ishmilchamah]

The problem as I see it is that if you come to the bible with a pre-conception of the trinity - either pro or against, then what you read will actually confirm what you believe.

I've had loads of conversations about this issue and even chaired a debate at my old university, and its never satisfied.

A JW comes to the bible and reads things like "god is one" "The father is greater than I etc." and everything else fits in their mind logically concerning Jesus being a created son of God.

A trinitarian does the opposite. Reads passages that ascribe the same titles and actions to Jesus and Yahweh and everything they read confirms their oneness.

I've always believed that we have to approach God without preconceptions.

Both trinity and non-trinty make logical head-sense to me.

But God is revealed through revelation, the supernatural. Jesus never went around Judea claiming to be messiah - he waited until God revealed it to Peter and Peter was blessed for it. Peter didn't listen to those who said Jesus was Elijah or John, but listened to God and got the revelation.

A debate on the trinity is won by the one whose skills at debating are better. It doesn't matter which is the truth if you don't have a personal relationship with God.

When you have one of those, every debatable issue is sidelined. God becomes a living reality, not a debatable concept.

Love and shalom to you all.

[wanderer]

Aug 27, 2005 4:22:52 GMT -5 catholicxjw said:

In the following two scriptures from Isaiah. Jehovah says that He created the earth and man upon it by Himself with His own hands. That no one else was with Him when He did this. Here is what the New World Translation says:

"11 This is what Jehovah has said, the Holy One of Israel and the Former of him: “Ask me even about the things that are coming concerning my sons; and concerning the activity of my hands YOU people should command me. 12 I myself have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.” -Isaiah 45:11,12

"This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?"-Isaiah 44:24

However, the New World Translation says that the Word (and we believe the Word to be) Jesus created everything.

"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. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." John 1:1-3

Notice how the scripture above says that not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus and yet in Isaiah Jehovah says He did everything with His own hands by Himself. How does one explain this?

In addition, the JWs teach that Jesus is a created being but the scripture above says that not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus. If Jesus is a created being as the JWs teach and not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus, does this mean that the JWs believe that Jesus created Himself?

How would a JW explain this?

Jeff S.

God created everything by his spoken word.
That word did not do any creating. It was the means by which God created alone.
That word became flesh.

[tcabeen]

Hi Wanderer (and all)

Jeff's original intent may have been to show that even the NWT, properly understood, equates Jesus with Jehovah, from the perspective of being the creator. Ishmilchamah (does that mean "man of war" or "warrior"?) brings a great insight into this matter: one brings to Scripture one's preconceived notions.

Personally, I believe it to be impossible to establish the Trinity doctrine (even abbreviated Protestant versions, let alone the full Catholic version, as articulated in the Athanasian Creed) from Scripture alone. The fact that so many brilliant people, working from the assumption that Scripture was the sole source of divinely-inspired information about Christian teaching, came to the conclusion that the doctrine was wrong (Michael Servitus, Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and many others) substantiates this. I am not in their league at all, but I do agree with them on this matter.

For that reason, I did not accept the Trinity doctrine as true until I first accepted the authority of the church. At the same time, I accepted all the church's teachings, not because I was convinced from Scripture that they were true, but because I was convinced that the way God had provided to protect the truth for every generation after the apostles, was through the only thing that has been there during every generation since the apostles: the Catholic church, period. (I also then saw that in Scripture: 1 Tim 3:15)

As it turned out, once I had accepted the Church's authority, I began to see surprisingly abundant evidence in Scripture for all her teachings, including those about Mary, purgatory, infallibility and other doctrines most non-Catholic have a problem with. But for me, accepting the Church's authority came first. Only then did I see Catholic teaching in Scripture, not the other way around.

Tom

[gkchesterton]

Sept 15, 2008 13:02:53 GMT -5 wanderer said:

God created everything by his spoken word.
That word did not do any creating. It was the means by which God created alone.
That word became flesh.

Close

For a long time after leaving I was not a Trinitarian. I actually made the switch over the course of the last year or so and am on record here as an Arian. The idea of the Word's act in creation is what made me change my mind, and Arius' trouble with that scripture. In fact, Athanasius pretty much exploded Arius' support on that scripture alone.

The Witnesses, in theory, reject Gnosticism, yet Athanasius makes an interesting (if in my mind inflated claim) that Arian sympathies are Gnostic, "Then, again, there is the theory of the Gnostics, who have invented for themselves an Artificer of all things other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. These simply shut their eyes to the obvious meaning of Scripture. For instance, the Lord, having reminded the Jews of the statement in Genesis, "He Who created them in the beginning made them male and female . . . ," and having shown that for that reason a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife, goes on to say with reference to the Creator, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." (Matt. 19. 4-6) How can they get a creation independent of the Father out of that? And, again, St. John, speaking all inclusively, says, "All things became by Him and without Him came nothing into being. (John 1. 3) How then could the Artificer be someone different, other than the Father of Christ?"

He follows with the thought, "From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself ; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word. He says as much in Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;(Gen. 1. 1) and again through that most helpful book The Shepherd, "Believe thou first and foemost that there is One God Who created and arranged all things and brought them out of non-existence into being." (The Shepherd of Hermas, Book II.) Paul also indicates the same thing when he says, " By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which we see now -did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared." (Heb. 11. 3) "

This is interesting. If we take for granted that the Word did act as the conduit through whom all things seen and unseen were created we have a conundrum. From whence came time? If time is through Jesus then rightly Jesus supersedes (as much as the expression can bear) time. If Jesus is "before" time then he is timeless. If timeless he is of nature with God.

From this we then get the import of why John felt the opening words of his gospel were critical. The Word was with God. That is, in the beginning, when all things were not the Word was (not here I'm not even going to quibble about the indefinite article, it really isn't necesary to the argument). To make the thought clear John doesn't stop there. He repeats himself twice using a negation, "he made all things/nothing was made".

John doesn't even stop there. He makes a fantastic claim given one of the Hebrew titles of God, Lord of Life, that, "in him was life," and in doing so claims an odd title for an Arian defense.

Also, when John uses explicit and complicated language to say that only Jesus has made known the likeness of God he presented a further problem. He asserts that God can been seen by only One. This makes the claim of Jesus having angelic lineage strange. If John is speaking of perceiving God in His Glory in Heaven then surely the angels have partaken of this. Instead, as the next phrase makes clear, he means something different. He means knowing God. Since God is infinite it would take an infinite being to know him. Therefore, again, John makes a claim to Jesus' divinity.

John then again, using a negation points out Jesus' identity. When the Jews question Jesus they ask him if he is the Prophet, that is the last and greatest prophet, which Arianism would tend to assert since a prophet is a messenger from God, that is, a Great Teacher who is instructing with God's help. However, Jesus rejects this claim.

For more try reading some of Athanasius' argument:
www.worldinvisible.com/library/athanasius/incarnation/incarnation.p.htm

[gkchesterton]

Sept 15, 2008 14:42:34 GMT -5 tcabeen said:

Personally, I believe it to be impossible to establish the Trinity doctrine (even abbreviated Protestant versions, let alone the full Catholic version, as articulated in the Athanasian Creed) from Scripture alone. The fact that so many brilliant people, working from the assumption that Scripture was the sole source of divinely-inspired information about Christian teaching, came to the conclusion that the doctrine was wrong (Michael Servitus, Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and many others) substantiates this. I am not in their league at all, but I do agree with them on this matter.

True, bu the converse is also true, that the Trinity can't be _disproven_ via scripture.

[tcabeen]

True enough, gkc.

Scripture is still exactly what it was at the beginning, a portion of the divinely-revealed deposit of faith, produced within an active faith community, by leading members of that community, most of it written to be read in public worship (not for private study apart from the community, except perhaps for the personal epistles). Viewed in that way, it still acts as it always has, as a divinely-inspired revelation for use within the faith community Jesus established.

Once you separate it from its natural setting and try to use it to establish teachings contrary to those held by the faith community within which it was produced and preserved, only conflict and division can result. This has been proven thousands of times since the sixteenth century.

Tom

[johnnyc]

If you define the "hand of God" as being God's actual hand, yes, that can be confusing. I don't see how thinking Angles playing a part in creation, themselves being created, is somehow contrary to the idea God created everything. Our parents play a role in conceiving us, but God gets the credit for creating us - right? Could it be said: Through our parents we are created by God.

[mlgal]

What about Isaiah 43: and my servant whom I have chosen that you know and believe that I am He.
and Rev. 1: Fear not. I am the first and the last and the living one. I died and behold I am alive forevermore.
Rev.2: The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.

[gkchesterton]

Mar 26, 2011 14:30:00 GMT -5 mlgal said:

What about Isaiah 43: and my servant whom I have chosen that you know and believe that I am He.
and Rev. 1: Fear not. I am the first and the last and the living one. I died and behold I am alive forevermore.
Rev.2: The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.

* Generally the servant here is oddly applied to the Witnesses, "You are my Witnesses" in v 10. Part of the problem is that the Witnesses claim the theme of the Bible is "The Kingdom" where the modern Witnesses are the Vicars of God (not Christ) effectively on earth. That messes up the heuristic.

* Generally the quotes in revelation are held to be just references to Christ having been the first to die and be raised. I never understood this since he isn't.

[avila]

gk: you said: Generally the quotes in revelation are held to be just references to Christ having been the first to die and be raised. I never understood this since he isn't.

Christ wasn't the first to be resurrected, but he was the first to be resurrected in an incorruptible body. Before him, those resurrected came back in corruptible bodies - the human body. Christ came back and he walked through the walls and then ascended to heaven with that body, so it was different from human flesh. There is a passage where Paul talks about the two types of bodies somewhere in Corinthians I think.

[gkchesterton]

I would agree with you, but that is what they are held to reference. The Witnesses go to great lengths in Revelation to distinguish between _two_ alpha/omega pairs of which one is Christ and one is God the Father.