It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The answer to the question is, "No. It is not Christian." Like all non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings.
The Watchtower organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian organization that uses its people to promulgate false doctrines, and collects "contributions" for distribution of a multitudinous amount of literature, and expand its grip into the lives of its members and their families.
It is a non-Christian cult.
Now you can actually see Russell's gravestone, there it is: 'Charles Russell, born February 16th 1852, died October 31st 1916 - the Laodecian Messenger'; but just beside Charles Taze Russell's grave is a monument to him which takes the form of a pyramid. There's actually an inscription on that pyramid in dedication to him, because that's where his theology came from, from a pyramid which is pagan, we could go as far as to say it's occultic in its origination.
www.preachtheword.co.uk...
Charles Taze Russell (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), better known as Pastor Russell, was a widely recognised Protestant minister of the early 20th century, who founded the religion known today as Jehovah's Witnesses.
en.wikipedia.org...
Pastor Russell's Pyramid Gravestone. The pyramid below is on the Watchtower Society’s "family" grave site. Charles T. Russell's grave is just a few feet to the west. It is believed many of his books were buried in the pyramid. Note the "cross crown" Masonic symbol at the top.
www.cephasministry.com...
Originally posted by amitheone
The teaching of Jesus is "a" god comes from the Jehovah's Witnesses which is contradictory to the writings of the Bible. They have their own version of the Bible called the "New World Translation".
They deliberately change and distort the original John 1:1 :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
Original KJV, RSV, NIV writes "the Word was God". God with the capital "G".
Another verse quoted in defense of the "Trinity" is the verse of John 1:1 :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis of the other verses.
First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a "Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following points:
1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).
Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?
Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the bible:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
Psalms 82:6:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4
What does all of this mean? Let me explain.
In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are an angel" ..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic.
Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses.
The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!
In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children." They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my children" ... etc. What do they mean?
A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the Greek and Arabic languages.
Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you," then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not "translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.
John's inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1,2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two.
Is this the proper translation?
No. The equation underlying the Witness rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. According to Watchtower assumptions, we would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says "God" the first time and "god" the second time. The context overrules their rule.
Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”?
1. To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.
2. To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit "the" in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.”
Author: Dr. John Bechtle
Grammatically, there are three possible ways to interpret in this verse:
• definite
"And the word was God" - the translation found in most traditional Bibles.
• indefinite
"And the word was a god"
• qualitative
"And the word was divine"
Since Greek grammar permits each of these meanings, you have to look at the context and the belief system of the writer in order to understand which meaning is most likely. Given John's understandings of Jesus and of God, it is very unlikely that he would have said that Jesus was "a god".
www.ibiblio.org...
Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording "The Word was God" or "the Word was divine" is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1. Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. "To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just 'a god’" [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30].
A) Jesus was equal with God
John 5:18 - For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Jesus was equal with God. If Jesus was just a god, then this verse is false as Jesus has equal standing with God according to the verse.
B) Jesus is the very nature God
Philippians 2:6 - Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Philippians 2:6 - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (KJV)
Jesus is the very nature God. If Jesus was just a god, then how can he be the very nature God? Being in the very nature God is equal with God and Jesus did not consider it a robbery. If Jesus was a just a god, then this verse is false.
C) God the Father calls His Son “God”
Hebrews 1: 8 - But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
God the Father calls His Son “God”. If Jesus was just a god, then the Father himself is in error, because He addresses Jesus, the Son as His “God”, exalted like the Father. Then, this verse is false according to the context “Jesus is just a god”.
D) Jesus is called “God with us”
Matthew 1:23 - "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."
Jesus was called God with us. If Jesus was just a god, then this verse is false and should read “A god is with us”.
E) Jesus and the Father are one.
John 10:30 - I and the Father are one."
If Jesus is just a god, then this verse is false because Jesus put himself as the same level with God the Father.
F) Jesus has the same glory as the Father
Isaiah 42:8 - "I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.
John 17:5 - And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Reading the two verses above, the Lord will not give glory to another. But Jesus has the same glory as the Father. Since Jesus and the Father are one, they have the same glory and they will not give glory to another. If Jesus is just a god, then this verse is false for “a god” cannot have the glory of the God the Father.
G) God says to have no other gods before Him
Exodus 20:3 - You shall have no other gods before me.
God the Father calls Jesus His God. Jesus and the Father are one. One God. If Jesus is just a god, then both the Father and the Son breaks the Ten Commandments for God says to have no other gods before Him.
H) Jesus is God Almighty
Revelation 1:7 - Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
If Jesus is just a god, then this verse is false because it says, Jesus is God Almighty.
I) Jesus is God overall
Romans 9:5 - Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
If Jesus is a just a god, then this verse should read “who is a god over all”.
J) Jesus is our Great God
K) God laid down his life for us
L) Thomas said, “My Lord and my God!”
I can carry on till Z, if I want to. Now, if you were to take the translation as “The Word (Jesus) was a god”, then you have to throw the whole Bible away and preserve 5 words consisting of 14 letters only – “The Word was a god” in favor of the correctness of the Greek translation in your version which is very much questionable and refutable. It makes for a cheaper and thinner Bible by the way. lol
Originally posted by amitheone
A) Jesus was equal with God
John 5:18 - For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
....
Jesus was equal with God. If Jesus was just a god, then this verse is false as Jesus has equal standing with God according to the verse.
Originally posted by GJIML
Well, i was raised for the truth that Jesus is the messiah and God...
But now, i'm having second thoughts about,if he's the son of the living God or He's God in flesh ! ! Plz, anyone who can shed some lights on this topic feel free to reply, it might comfort me In other words: Is Jesus God ?
For I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him whom has sent me
father fathe why have you forsaken me
this is my som whom I am well pleased
Great that you are the Pagan Police.
I did not know I was a pagan.
The fact that there are people worshiping other gods is indicative of the fact that there are other gods.
Are you insane?