Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God and is Divine? ;?

Question

Please refer to this Bible verse
John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe I should add that this verse was taken from the New American Bible (Cathoilc) and the Godd News Bible (Protestant) Both the most recent Christian translations.
How about John 20:28-30:
27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe."
28 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

I guess any Bible can be transliterated as one sees fit for his puposes but I think a Bilbe translated by a very large group of Catholic, Protestant and even Jewish scholars recognized as experts in Geek and Hebrew would be a more reliable translation. Don't you?

Ok, so I made a mistake and typed Geek instead of Greek!

Answer 1

We believe he is God's son and yes he is a divine being. We do not, however, feel John 1:1 is support for the trinity.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo′gos] was with God [a form of the·os′]”). This first the·os′ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os′ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os′ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo′gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os′] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Answer 2

First, Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses do BELIEVE in Jesus. They just know that Jesus is NOT God himself.

At JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo′gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo′gos] was with God [a form of the·os′]”). This first the·os′ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os′ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os′ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous (no article) predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo′gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os′] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “John 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’ ”

If you would like further information or a free home Bible study, please contact Jehovah's Witnesses at the local Kingdom Hall. Or visit http://www.watchtower.org

Answer 3

Jesus is called "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6.

He is NEVER called "Almighty God" in the Bible.

He is the Son of Almighty God Jehovah. Compare Luke 1:32 with Exodus 6:3 & Psalm 83:18.

Certainly he, being the Son of God, is divine.

Not all translations render John 1:1 as does the KJV. In others we read that the word was: "divine" "godlike" "what God was the Word was" and so on. The NWT renders the passage as "... and the Word was a god."

If the Word was God, and God was with God, then you have two Gods. Throw in the Holy Spirit and you have three Gods. That seems rather polytheistic to me.

The NWT rendering of John 1:1 is grammatically and theologically correct. Those who disagree say that it is not grammatically correct. For these I have a question: In the KJV there is another passage that in the Greek is grammatically identical to this one, but they render the English just as the NWT does in John 1:1 and this other passage.

Jhn 1:1c Greek says "and god was the word." (The first occurence of God in Greek says "THE GOD." Definite article.

Now, in reference to the apostle Paul, KJV & NWT both say in the pertinant part of Acts 28:4: - "this man is a murderer." In the Greek it says "murderer is the man." Funny how the KJV feels it is alright here to add the indefinite article, but not in John 1:1. Perhaps it is because of their bias they are doing this to support the trinity dogma???

Anyway, how could Jesus be God since he was created BY God? (Colossians1:15; Revelation 3:14)

Jesus himself indicated that he was not God when he said: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, AND OF the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." -- John 17:3.

Answer 4

Yes, JWs believe that Jesus is divine, and that he became a “Mighty God”. Please notice that Isa 9:6 is in the FUTURE tense, WILL BE/SHALL BE, a FUTURE PROPHECY at the time it was written, that means Jesus doesn’t have that title until it was given to him by the Father and until it’s fulfillment. Jehovah, described as God, Mighty God and Almighty God is never described as having a beginning unlike Jesus who was called “of GOD’S Creation, He is the beginning”. Rev 3:14, Col 1:15. That’s why when Thomas called Jesus “My Lord and My God” , it can be that Thomas was referring to Jesus as the “Mighty God” which was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa 9:6. Jesus, even though , he became the “Mighty God” has still a GOD, when he went back to heaven. See Rev 3:12. Jesus admits that his SOURCE of life is the Father, See John 5:26.

Answer 5

"And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated..."the word was a divine being." "

“The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

- "In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos)." -


I believe John when he said Jesus was with the God,

I believe John when he said all thing were made through him,

I believe John when he said that Jesus’ glory was that of an only begotten son,

I believe John when he Jesus became flesh,

I believe John when he said the only begotten god explained Jehovah,

I believe John when he said no one has seen God at any time (John chapter 1)

I believe in proper English grammar, that Jesus is a god, which agrees with Jesus being the only begotten god.

Just as "Snoopy is dog", is improper English, "The Word is God" is also improper english.

I believe John when he said he wrote his gospel to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

I believe John when he says Jesus’ God will make us a Kingdom at Rev 1: 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

Edit===

Jesuit John L. McKenzie

Please note what:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

According to your own Church, the bible doesn't teach the trintity.

"Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"

If you don't believe JW's then believe your own Church.

Answer 6

Of course, it is more reliable to agree with common beliefs, as they are paid to do so and get their names immortalized. There are also Bibles, not by JWs, which use the other terms.

Finally, why are those who believe in the divinity so little like Christ? Why do they not know what day Christ had the Last Supper on, even though he said to keep this day in Memorial? Dies the teachings of Christ mean so little to them? Why do they assume that is Christ didn't specifically spell something out as wrong, that it must be okay? Do they take that excuse from their children?

Finally, why is it only okay for the main stream churches to modify beliefs, such as about pagan observances, to make is easier to recruit and keep their followers?

Wait, that doesn't work.

JWs don't try to make it easier to be a witness and follower of Christ.

Answer 7

As the question implies, many godly people (even some self-described "Christians") believe that Jesus was a mere human prophet. By contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians who accept the bible teaching that Jesus Christ was and is divine, is a god, and is of the same nature as God.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that no salvation occurs without Christ, that accepting Christ's sacrifice is a requirement for true worship, that every prayer must acknowledge Christ, that Christ is the King of God's Kingdom, that Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, that Christ is immortal and above every creature, even that Christ was the 'master worker' in creating the universe!

Jehovah's Witnesses love and respect and honor Christ. But Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the bible truth that Jesus the Son is distinct from and not equal to God the Father (see Scriptures below).

Most Mormon religions (including LDS) believe somewhat similarly that Jesus is a god, and that "Jesus the Son" is a distinct person subject to "God the Father". However, Mormon beliefs about the identities of Jesus, Jehovah, and "the Father" are quite different from the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

As mentioned above, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Scriptures quite plainly demonstrate that Jesus and the Almighty are separate distinct persons, and the Almighty created Jesus as His firstborn son.

(Colossians 1:15) the firstborn of all creation

(Mark 10:18) Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.

(Revelation 3:14) the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God

(Philippians 2:5-6) Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God

(John 8:42) Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth

(John 12:49) I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak

(John 14:28) I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am

(1 Corinthians 15:28) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him

(Matthew 20:23) this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father

(1 Corinthians 11:3) I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; ...in turn the head of the Christ is God

(John 20:17) I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.

(Deuteronomy 6:4) Jehovah our God is one Jehovah

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) There is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him

Thanks again for an opportunity to share what the bible actually says about the distinct persons of Jesus Christ the Son and Jehovah God the Father!

Learn more!
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/
http://watchtower.org/e/20050422/
http://watchtower.org/e/20020515/
http://watchtower.org/e/pr/article_04.htm

Answer 8

JW's teach/believe that Jesus USED TO BE Michael the Archangel until God turned Him into 'a god.' Looks like JW's believe in MULTIPLE gods. JW's bible, the New World Translation, has John 1:1 ending , "...and the word was a god."

Answer 9

They say that Jesus is "a God". He is a might god but not God almighty.

The Bible of course says that Jesus is God. In the verse that you quote, there is a literary device used in Greek. Word for word, it says "God was the Word". It emphasizes the equality of Jesus with God.

Answer 10

No, they think Jesus is "a" god. They place a distinction between a "Mighty God" and the "Almighty God". With Jesus being the "Mighty God" and God the Father being the "Almighty God".

Jesus is sorta the "mini-me" version of God, I guess.

Kinda polytheistic if you ask me.

All in all, unbiblical. Jesus is clearly one with the Father in nature & essence. That is, He is as much God as is the Father and Holy Spirit.