- NEW!
by gmeades on June 30th, 2008
Did the Jehovah's Witnesses roots come out of the Catholic Church....why do JW's use a catholic bible?
by discipleofjesus on February 24th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Rather or not you agree with JW’s, do you believe that mob violence is ever justified? Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9lQjwwbEM
by Texasescimo on January 14th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Will Jehovah's Witnesses go to Hell for misspelling Yahweh?
by Want To Sleep With A Miner on December 18th, 2011
| 2 people like this
If your father is a jehovahs whitness,,, can he give you away on a church wedding??
by annonymous1 on January 17th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Should it be made illegal for religions to knock on your door to sell their religions to you?
by Ombliss22 on February 6th, 2012
| 9 people like this
You're reading Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
The idea of Statan???? wow. I found this website www.4jehovah.com that supposedly reveals a lot about their religion. It also lists a lot of the instances where their bible has Jehovah where it should say Lord or God. My friend gave me a new world translation and we have been doing some bible studies where he is trying to show me that Jesus is not divine. I have been comparing those scriptures to the kjv and when it comes to Jesus, a lot of them are skewed. there is one verse i found that the NWT cuts out. Its about there being 3 that bear record in heaven(1 John 5:7,8)
The KJV says " 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
The NWT says " 7 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and three are in agreement."
Now this is no small error.
by pickens on June 30th, 2008
Well, as you're on a fact finding expedition, you are aware that the concept of the trinity was never taught or believed by the first century church, don't you...? The concept of the trinity itself was not introduced until after Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire in 313AD. The idea of the trinity was debated and argued about from that time until it was finally voted on at the council of Nicea in 325AD. It was not an original Christian belief, and was never considered or discussed until well after the last of the apostles had long ago died. Here's some info for you regarding this -
http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html#Nicea
by gmeades on June 30th, 2008
Also - Biblical scholars of today, have admitted that the phrase "...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.
- more info here -
http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/trinity.htm
http://members.aol.com/IslamTeam/trinity1.htm
by gmeades on June 30th, 2008
I just looked up the bible commentary on the 1 John 5:7 scripture and i agree. Do you have any religious affiliation?
by pickens on June 30th, 2008
But just because that verse cant be used in a valid argument doesn't mean the Trinity doctrine is false though. Im not saying you are sayin it is, although you may very well be saying it is lol. There is plenty of other scriptural evidence in support of it. But really, I prefer the term Godhead.
by pickens on June 30th, 2008
No, when I was younger I spent like 8 years in biblical research, but I have no religious ties at all myself. I've always been interested in the truths that were understood and taught in the original 1st century church and spent years getting back to that original understanding of how the spiritual realm works, and what Jesus actually gave to us and revealed. When I finally had a good understanding of spiritual matters, I decided to test my understanding of the reality of the spiritual realm, and moved to another part of the country where I didn't know anyone. I lived on prayer for a year and found my understanding was accurate and well founded. In more recent years I've been studying quantum physics quite a bit and find it also supports the evidence of these spiritual realities which were originally taught in the bible as well.
by gmeades on June 30th, 2008
oh really?? thats kinda cool i guess lol. You dont have to be a member of a religon to believe and follow God and the bible, as you well know :). We put too much stock in denominations. They do help us to match our beliefs with others though. Do you believe the early church Sabbath was the seventh day?
by pickens on June 30th, 2008
And did i tell you how awesome what you did is? and are doing? lol but seriously. Do you believe Jesus is divine?
by pickens on June 30th, 2008
The early church believed shabbat was a day of rest, yes, and following the jewish traditions from which Christianity was founded it was observed on the 7th day, from Friday sunset until Saturday sunset, in accordance with the Genesis account of creation, as well as the 10 commandments as provided in Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15. After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the sabbath was still kept on the seventh day, but some followers began observing the "lords day", being the first day of the week, as their sabbath. They believed they were no longer under the jewish law and traditions and that Christs resurrection represented a new beginning, as did the first day of the week. Gradually over time, the sabbath went from being celebrated on the seventh day to being celebrated on the first day by the Christian church over the course of the next 4 centuries, largely to distinguish themselves and their practices from those of Judaism.
by gmeades on June 30th, 2008
In order for Jesus to have fulfilled all of the law, and to have fulfilled his purpose as "the second adam" 1cor15:22,45 and redeem man from the authority of Satan, it was a legal requirement that he be fully human. To have been otherwise would have been "cheating", and would have voided the contract requred for redemption. This is alluded to in Rom 5:17,18 and was taught and understood by the first century Christians. The debate over his being anything more than human did not even begin until many years after his apostles had died.
by gmeades on June 30th, 2008
As far as the signs, miracles, and wonders that he performed, Jesus himself stated to his followers in John 14:12 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father". Acts 2:22 Luke attested to Jesus being a man when he wrote, "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him." There are also records of others doing signs and wonders in the old and new testaments, including the sending out of the 70 in Luke 10:9, the signs and wonders performed by phillip and simon in Acts 6:8 and Acts 8:6, and others. Yet only Jesus is singled out as being divine by those who base their argument on this, despite it being clearly documented that signs, miracles, and wonders were expected to be performed, and were performed by those who followed the teachings of the first century christians.
by gmeades on June 30th, 2008
gmeades, some right, some wrong.
pickens, quote "Now this is no small error." I see that you found out that the JW's had no error in that. Not many are that humble. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John5:7-8;&version=NIV;HCSB;NKJV;NLT;NASB;
by Texasescimo on September 28th, 2009
Yes, 1 John 5:7 cannot be used as proof of a triune God. I wish more people would do what "gmeades" took time to do and that is do a little more rigorous, extensive research on this spurious passage.
It was not a part of the original Bible canon. It appeared centuries after the Bible was originally written. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not making this up. It didn’t even appear in the first edition of the KJV but was later added because of pressure from the Catholic Church on Erasamus who helped prepare what we callthe “textus receptus.” The Kings James Version was largely based on his work and research of compiling the few manuscripts he had on hand.
Personally, I like the KJV but there are certain verses that have been scrutinized by textual critics and found to be embellishments by some "over zealous" scribes. Unfortunately, thanks to versions like the KJV, many have been taught the trinity is true from inaccurate renderings like 1 John 5:7-8. Thankfully, we can discover these "additions" thanks to good scholarship and having access to so many reliable, early manuscripts.
Nick Batchelor
by nick batchelor on September 17th, 2010