For Jehovah's Witnesses - (bashers/R&S trolls needn't bother to answer)?

Question

I have a valid question for Jehovah's Witnesses that I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to:

If you agree that there is only one True God, then please tell me...is Jesus a true god or a false god? Your own New World Translation of the Bible states:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

If this is true, doesn't that infer that Jesus a god? And if so, is he a true god or a false god? I had some JW friends tell me that they believe Jesus is deity so he is given obescience, but that didn't really tackle the underlying question. If he is a false god, he isn't due any kind of special treatment or honor. If he is a true god, then he is the one and only true god, correct?

Ah, Ela Kiri...thanks for a sound off from the Troll Gospel Choir.

Red Bird: I even had JW missionaries come to my house and spend an hour and a half with me (they came over twice, brought the Big Guns with them on vist #2) and they agreed that Jesus is deity. They also said he was the Archangel Michael, but I couldn't get them to justify that assertion with any proof texts.

Tash Viva: I do already understand what you are saying, but it doesn't answer my question since the NWT implies that Jesus is "a god".

Gunslinger: I even looked at the interlinear with my home visitors and it looks like the Greek states "and God was the Word". Interesting, yes?

ray_clrk: So then basically, if Jesus is a Mighty God, he is a true God - correct?

JR: two things, I guess: the is Jesus a god, the Archangel Michael, God's son or just one of many gods that the One True God thought would be OK for humans to be obedient to? Oh, and I just wanted to mention that the original Greek translation of John 1:1 does NOT say A god. There are a good number of Greek scholars that say there is no way that passage translates that way, unless it's simply mistranslated to suit a particular purpose, so I can't agree with you on that.

JR: Ok, I see what you are saying, even though I understand most experts on Greek agree that the lack of a definite article does not mean that the noun is indefinite. Example in John 1:6 - God’ in John 1:6. no definite article, as in ‘the Word was God’. If the lack of a definite article means there should be an indefinite article, then this passage would be translated ‘There was a man sent from a god’, and that doesn't make any sense.

Plus - saying Jesus is a god but is neither a true god or a false god lacks reason. If he is not the true God, he must be a false god. That's the only thing that really makes any sense, if you draw it out to its logical conclusion, anyway. Thanks for your input!

UnsilencedLamb: "Bashing" to me means people who just want to want to bash religion in general, without wanting to discuss the actual issue. YOU are not basher.

I don't see how capitalizing something makes it more valid. Mom vs. mom. Same person.

Iif Jehovah's Witnesses are the monotheists they claim to be, then this should be a really easy question to answer. If there is only One, True God, the others are false.

Thanks, everyone, for your input. It was very interesting, even though it still didn't really answer the question.

Answer 1

And no matter what the answer to this specific question, the fact is that saying Jehovah is God and Jesus is a god denotes a belief in more than one God, which is the definition of polytheism. Yet, they will deny being polytheists. As usual, the WT likes to have things both ways.

Answer 2

Jehovah's Wittnesses believe that God and Jesus are two entirely separate beings...that God (Jehovah) is the Almighty and that he and he alone should be worshipped and prayed to. They believe Jesus is God's son and that it is through his sacrifice that mandkind can be saved.
They respect Jesus and acknowledge that it is because of his sacrifice that they can be saved, but they do not honor him as a God, worship him or pray to him.

*Edit* Didn't answer that bit, because I have no answer....I remember that scripture being spoken about at a meeting when I was a child. They spent much time talking about it but they never explained why he is called 'a god' in that scripture yet should not be worshipped. They simply did not have an explanation. I remember, even at just 11 or so, being greatly dissatisfied and feeling let down with the result of the discussion.

Answer 3

He not a true God nor is he a false god.

Angels and men were all called gods, and they weren't all against God Almighty. The different between the cases in God and god very important to understand, and people fail to recognize that.

A god is a divine being, and a divine being is a god. Jesus was not God Almighty, nor was he a false god, but he was a true divine being. So theres many ways this question can be answered - but you have to understand the difference between a god and a God first.

If God and god were the same, then Satan, Angels and the Judges would have not been called gods by faithful men and Jesus.

Spiritual Gunslinger - Theres Greek scholars that don't agree with the NWT translation, and theres some that do. You can't make a generalized statement and say all Greek scholars disagree.

The fact is, the-os (God) can be translated many different ways, and not just to "God".

I always bring out the Coptic Translation as proof of the "a god" translation because it was translated over 1000 years ago, and it also translated John 1:1 to "a god". These translators knew Greek very well - and translated many versus the same way the NWT did in the NT.


Update: Of course the original Greek doesn't say "a god" but it could be translated to "god" (lowercase). Greek doesn't use indefinite articles which is why theres no "a" in Greek, but it doesn't mean it can't be translated to "a god" in English. The indefinite article "a" is used all over the Greek scriptures, but I guess you just didn't know that.


If you look at bias sources, then you will find Greek scholars saying that, but it doesn't apply to all Greek scholars.

Greek scholars agree with the "God" translation.
Greek scholars agree with the "a god" translation
Greek scholars agree with the "divine" translation
Greek scholars agree with the "godlike" translation.

Based on some scholars statement, it doesn't mean all scholars think the same.


(1) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
Diaglot
1865 Diaglot NT
2) Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
(3) Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
(4) Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
(5) Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
(6) Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
(7) New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
(8) Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
(9) Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
(10) Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
(11) Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
(12) Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"
(13) Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
(14) Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
(15) Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
(16) J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
(17) George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
(18) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
(19) ames L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
(20) Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
(21) Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"
(22) Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
(23) Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
(24) Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
(25) Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
(26) Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
(27) Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
(28) Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
(29) Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
(30) Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"
(31) Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
(32) Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
(33) Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]
(34) Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]
(35) Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(36) Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
(37) Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
(38) Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]
(39) Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]
(40) Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]
(41) Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
(42) Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)
(43) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(44) Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]
(45) Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
(46) Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
(47) William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."
(48) John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
(49) Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
(50) Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"
(51) Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being

Answer 4

There lies the contradiction. Why is it only the New World Translation of John 1:1 say "and the Word was "a" god"?

Why is it I can take the same verse from an interlinear Greek Bible to any Greek scholar and get the same translation "and the Word was God."

Note the difference - am not bashing JW. Am just pointing out that the question can't be answered if the translation is incorrect.

Answer 5

If we should see, for example, someone being called the ‘TRUE prophet,’ that should mean that the person so described is TRULY a prophet. In either case this certainly does not have to mean that all other prophets must be FALSE. Even if it was said that this one was the "ONLY true Prophet," we would probably consider him the ONLY prophet in the HIGHEST of the word, but that still would not make ALL other prophets of God FALSE prophets.

For God to say that he is the TRUE God does not demand that ALL others called ‘god’ or ‘gods’ are FALSE gods as a few trinitarian apologists imply. The inspired scriptures when speaking of FAITHFUL angels, prophets, God-appointed judges, kings, and magistrates clearly calls them "gods" on occasion. These are called "gods" in the sense of faithful servants of God, representing the true God.

At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father: "FATHER, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - New International Version (NIV). Here the Father ALONE is not only very clearly identified as the only true God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically EXCLUDED from that identification ("AND Jesus Christ whom YOU [the only true God] have sent").

Notice how this respected trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - "FATHER,....This is eternal life: to know thee WHO ALONE art truly God, AND Jesus Christ whom THOU hast sent." - New English Bible (NEB).

So, the title "the TRUE God" does not have to mean that there are no others who may be called "gods" or "a god" in a subordinate but righteous sense. It is, however, an EXCLUSIVE title for God, the Most High, only true God, Jehovah. And clearly it refers EXCLUSIVELY to the FATHER. No one else is the God or the True God. (Compare Ps. 86:10; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 37:16.)

For info on John 1:1 see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/663

Answer 6

Good question! Thumbs up to you. I know what your source is because I use the same one! Thumbs up to you!

JW's Jesus isn't a created angel!!! He is God Almighty!

For to which of the angels did He ever say:


“ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

And again:


“ I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”? Heb. 1:5

To deny the verse above is to call God a liar! According to Titus 1:2 God can't lie...so whose lying? It's you!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word(Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Ex. 3:14

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:58

Since Jesus IS God then Jesus also preexisted before the foundations of the earth. He is preeminent!

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Col. 1:15-18

Answer 7

Hi RayeKaye,
(notice the capital lettering)
He is a true god.
Definately not false!
He came from his Father & God YHWH, the one true God.
So it goes to reason, Jesus is a real & true god-
Benevolent.
Even Satan the Devil is a real & true god-
Not Benevolent.
You go on to give details & more Q's...so.
By acknowledging Jesus' diety,
that is saying he is a (true) god, right there.
Even if it was written thusly;
"he is god" would still be correct.
and not imply that he is or was the God.

Ur very last Q.......
"If he is a true god,
then he is the one & only true god, correct?"
You would be correct.
While not leaving off that his God & Father
is the one true God, also; the God.
The difference is god and God;
god-Jesus
God-Jehovah.

Ray Clrk said---
Mighty god is Jesus; Almighty God is YHWH.
JR said---
God, YHWH / god, Jesus.
Tik of Totq said---
The titles applied to each are as follows.
the one true God--YHWH aka Jehovah.
Which is exclusive, so it excludes Jesus.
A god--His Son, Jesus aka Micheal.
All 3 men are correct.

Answer 8

You are presenting the old logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

Jesus is not the One he is speaking to at John 17:3. He is clearly calling his Father "You, the only true God." [Greek: se ton monon alhqinon qeon]

Jesus did not say 'US [i.e, Father and Son] the only true God.' In speaking of the Father, he said YOU. So Jesus is not including himself in the designation "the only true God."

That does not make Jesus a "false god." As the word "true" is used in the New Testament, it distinguishes not only between itself and what is false, but also between itself and what is DIFFERENT.

According to the BDAG Greek lexicon, the word "alhqinos," true, has several meanings, according to context. One such meaning is "true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies." (page 43)

As examples of this, it gives Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, which speaks of the "true tabernacle [or, tent]" and the temple which was a copy of the true sanctuary.

The earthly tabernacle and the temple were not "false" places of worship, even though they merely represented the "true sanctuary" in heaven. They were merely different from the "true sanctuary."

In the same manner, Jesus' divinity is not "false" simply because he is not God Almighty. In many ways, the divinity of Jesus represents that of his Father. Jesus manifests his Father to mankind. He came in his Father's name to do his Father's work.

Still, there are many ways in which Jesus differs from the Father. He is the Son; he had a beginning from the Father. There are things that, according to Jesus' own words, the Father knows that he, Jesus, did not. The glory and authority Jesus possesses, he said was *given* to him by the Father.

The Father is the Only True God in that He is the Archetype, the Grand Source of all, including Jesus. But as the Son, Jesus is divine.

Jesus' divinity is not false, it is just not the same in every respect as that of his Father, otherwise he would be the Father.

We need to understand, not just the English meaning of the term "true," but especially how that word is used in the New Testament itself.

Answer 9

1 Cor.8:5 says there are many gods & lords but one Lord to us (the Son Jesus) and one God ( the Father Jehovah).
Jesus is a God like being but is not called the true God for he was never referred to as such and he's definately not a false god for Isaiah 9:6 calls him a Mighty God.
but never is he called" God Almighty" like Exodus 6:3
no he is not a false god im sure you know what they are but even Satan the Devil is called a god 2 Cor. 4:4.
but Jesus is not the God that we pray to for he say's to pray to the Father. Matt 6:9 also Matt 23:9.
So when praying to the only true God like Jesus told us to do we mention him by name to distiguish the difference to whom we are talking to since there are so many gods, calling God by Name (Jehovah or YHWH or Father) lets him know to whom we are talking to. But no where in the scriptures does Jesus say's " pray to ME this way" since i am God, no , but says pray to thy FATHER. And Jesus is a Mighty God for he also helped his Father the Almighty God in Creation also Colossians 1:15,16.
So there is a difference.

Answer 10

The only Scripture which refers to "the only true God" makes it incredibly obvious that Jesus is a person distinct from "the only true God"!

(John 17:3) This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus (the Son) was "sent forth" on an assignment from "the only true God", the two cannot be the same person. Interestingly, the verse even teaches that God is superior to Jesus (since Jesus the Son directs prayer to and performs the work assigned by God the Father).


Meanwhile, it is sad when anti-Witnesses imply that Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus to be "false".

None of the Scriptures which have been translated to refer to Jehovah as "true" actually uses a term which is strictly an antonym of "false". Instead, in both Hebrew and Greek the terms convey the sense of being an "absolute" or "genuine" or "without peer" god in comparison with other so-called "gods". Almighty Jehovah has no peer among so-called "gods" such as Baal and Molech, Zeus and Jupiter.

Interestingly, the Scriptures nine times refer to Jehovah as "the true Lord". Yet the word "lord" is used dozens of times in reference to kings, dignitaries, masters, angels, and (of course) Jesus Christ. Would this questioner pretend that all of these "lords" must be "false" or else also be part of a single mysterious multi-personalitied "true Lord"?

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/200602b/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/19990208/article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20040122/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_03.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_05.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/rq/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/dg/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm?article=article_04.htm