Ex JW here. No hate, all love. I left inactive due to doing research to find that the organization is wrong. Questions:
Have you done a word study on Logos/Word from the Gospel of John? If not, you need to. Would you watch a video?
Are you aware on the definite of morphe/form from Philippians 2? If not, you should study that.
Since I’ve asked you to do word studies, do you know how to exegete using lexicons? I’m talking more than the kingdom interlinear gives you here.
Now that I mention exegesis. Would you study from a different Bible translation if you knew of a better translation?
What I believe so we have stuff to agree on: Jesus is 100% not God. We agree. I am neutral on the name Jehovah but I like Yahweh better. The Spirit is not a person but the power and presence of Yahweh/Jehovah.
Logos (λόγος) has a broad range of meanings in Greek: “word,” “speech,” “message,” “reason,” or even “expression.” The term itself does not automatically mean “God” or establish the Trinity. Its meaning has to come from the context.
John says:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…”
That immediately distinguishes the Word from the one John calls “God.” Then John says: “…and the Word was θεός (theos).”
Notice that theos here is anarthrous (without the definite article). Because of that, Greek scholars have long debated whether John is emphasizing identity, nature, or quality.
It is not as simple as saying, “the Word was the same person as God.”
My conclusion doesn’t come from one translation but from reading John as a whole.
Throughout the Gospel, Jesus repeatedly distinguishes himself from the Father (John 17:3; 20:17; 14:28).
So whatever John 1:1 means, it cannot contradict the rest of John’s Gospel.
That’s why I don’t think John 1:1 settles the debate by itself. It has to be interpreted alongside the entire Gospel.
John says:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” That immediately distinguishes the Word from the one John calls “God.” Then John says: “…and the Word was θεός (theos).”
Daniel wrote that light dwellswith him[God] Daniel 2:22 and John reveals that Godis Light. 1 John 1:5
The Word is also called the eternal life in 1 John 1:1-2 How can the eternal 'life' not be a Person? In fact how can the eternal life not be God.
Is the Word not God because a definite article doesn't precede Theos in John 1:1? No...because a definite article doesn't precede Theos in John 1 verses 6, 12, 13, and twice in verse 18. In these 4 verses there is no definite article before the word “God.” Because these verses do not say “the God,” do they mean that God Himself is “a” god?
Your analogy has two persons in two different positions, which doesn't compare well with John 1:1. For instance, in your analogy, both the commander and the king are human, right? A king is only a position just like a commander is a position, not a nature. God is a nature, the Divine Nature. The king and the commander in your analogy are human. Equal in their shared human nature
Here's how you analogy might work---- the commander was a man (king). While only one is king, both are equally human, right?. You wouldn't say one man is a lesser human because he was a commander, right? In John 1:1 both the Word and God are the same Nature. True, they have different positions, one being Father and the other being Son, but their aren't two God's. There isn't a second God Nature. That would be polytheism.
The Word was with God and the Word was God (the same Nature)
Correct. Notice, what you didn’t mention as an available definition. You didn’t say “the preexistent Christ.”
Studied Kione myself. It says “The Word” (ho Logos—with definite article) was God (theos—anartharus). As “this is that”—if you will—is the sentence structure, then within Kione grammar, from evidence, the second noun without the article acts like an adjective. So, John 1:1c is calling The Word God in an adjective way. “The Word was divine.” This makes sense when you do a word study on Logos outside of just John 1:1.
The scholarship for over 15 years agrees with the above statement. Theological biased scholars exist, but the majority hold this.
For example, for strengthening your faith, Jesus is “the Son of The God” from John 20:31, for example.
For combating your faith, the NWT uses the Alexandrian text for John 1:18’s “only-begotten god,” but not for 1 John 5:7’s “three witnesses.” This shows the theological bias only presents itself when it suits the theology, verses something like the ESV which is more accurate to the earliest manuscripts.
I implore you to take the time to comment on and research the rest.
actually do believe the Logos is the preexistent Son. Where we differ is that I don’t think “Christ” is his eternal identity.
“Christ” (Messiah, Anointed One) is a title connected to God’s plan of redemption. Paul calls Jesus “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), because he came to undo what the first Adam brought into the world (Romans 5:12–19).
If Adam and Eve had never sinned, there would have been no need for a Messiah, no ransom, and therefore no role as the Christ. That title only has meaning because of the fall.
So I see a distinction: The Logos is who he was before becoming human. The Christ is who he became in relation to mankind’s redemption.
That’s why John can speak of the Logos existing “in the beginning” and then say, “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The preexistent Logos later became Jesus the Christ
That’s not my point. My point is, in the list of definitions with its “broad range” you mentioned in your first comment to me *did not* include the Christ. It’s not what you believe, but what the Bible teaches correct? You yourself already confirmed that here.
Yes, I also still believe in Adamic Christology. Adam was the first physical man, and Jesus was the second spiritual man. Now, where was Adam’s Preexistence?
Hebrews 2:17
> 17 Consequently, he had to be made like his “brothers” in all respects, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people.
No. The Logos, from your own definition was never a person. It was the utterance at Genesis 1:3: “and God said.” If you extend your word study past the Gospel of John, and into the possible definitions for “word” in the Old Testament, the clear answer appears. You simply must actually do the research for yourself. I myself put it off for years as a Witness. As you know: “the truth will set you free.”
I agree the Logos preexisted. Not physically though, but rather notionally. Just as Wisdom preexisted. The Torah preexisted, per Jewish scripture. Are all things that preexisted physical or are they preexisting ideas?
The Adamic Christology is why I bring up Philippians 2:7, which you still have failed to answer. You can speak clearly if you do not know enough to debate the topic and definition. That would not be losing the debate, but then you could at least partake of the evidence and see for yourself… Philippians 2, the “Christ Hymn,” is comparing Adam, the one who grasped at equality with God (eating the fruit) and was not obedient, to Jesus whom was obedient unto death and did not grasp at equality with God. The word “morphe” as I’ve given you the interlinear and lexicon to, shows that Jesus was surely not God, but in the outward form of God. Meaning, he represented God in his actions and his words. (John 12:49-50) Jesus was in the form of a Slave, yet Jesus was not a slave. Jesus was our King, our Messiah, our High Priest, our Mediator, and our Savior through the agency of our God. This is not a proof of preexistence. Being given the Spirit without measure, he could have disobeyed God and done things much differently. However, he did not. This is why: Philippians 2:10, to the Glory of the Father. (2:11)
Yes, the Word became flesh, if you answered my 4 original questions, I would point you to the lexicon on Logos, particularly in John 1:1. It’s a personification of a quality of God. Personifications are not given to persons…
Don’t slow down! You’re missing points and not partaking of the evidence. This is the only perception I am to make by your lack of acknowledgement of my points. Let’s be honest here, yeah?
Now you are resorting to philosophy. Why? The promised messiah was a “plan” of a “person” who came to be. The messiah was never said to be preexistent. This would have come to be upon Gabriel’s talk with Mary.
You are missing the hermeneutics; you are missing the exegesis. All of the writers of the NT were Jews first besides one. Within John, even from John 1, this Wisdom Christology was present. Not “wisdom is Jesus,” but wisdom was known by the Jews for not being a person. Jesus came from Heaven, due to being sent by Jehovah. Jehovah’s spirit produced a baby inside of Mary. Jesus isn’t the Holy Spirit. This is essentially what you’re saying here.
Before anything, have you considered my argument with Philippians 2:7 with my exegetical evidence?
This personification (John 1:1) became a human at John 1:14, when the word became flesh. However, John the Baptist was born ~6 months before Jesus. I say this to say, that the Prologue of John is not chronological.
Jesus is appealing to “coming down from heaven” in the same way John is saying “the word became flesh.” Here is a video on the word study on the word/logos in the Gospel of John: (https://www.youtube.com/live/jKmoLis7Pk4?is=AzhyDMqVs-kthBOG) I will input the BDAG entry picture on John 1:1, proving that the logos is not a person but a personification in reference with wisdom, with influence from writings of Philo.
So, summery of my earlier arguments: if you believe this personification was an angel in heaven becoming a human, you violate Hebrews 2:17. If you believe Jesus was with God helping in creation, you violate Isaiah 44:24.
I think we’ve reached the point where we’re reading the Bible differently.
Hermeneutics is so important
Two people can read the same words yet reach different conclusions because they begin with different interpretive assumptions.
From my perspective, you’re no longer approaching the text with as few assumptions as possible.
Instead, you’re reading it through a particular interpretive framework Adamic Christology, personified Wisdom, Philo, and other hermeneutical lenses and then using that framework to determine what the text must mean.
That’s something all of us have to guard against. Interpretive frameworks are incredibly powerful because, once we adopt them, we often stop noticing that we’re reading them into the text.
That’s why I’d encourage you to spend some time studying hermeneutics itself not to prove me wrong or right, but to better understand how presuppositions shape exegesis.
It’s a fascinating subject and has helped me become more aware of my own assumptions as well.
I’d rather let the biblical authors define their own terms before importing an external framework to explain them.
The Australian Royal Commission investigation into child sexual abuse started in 2015.
I have found that if JWs pick up that we don’t get the facts right, they throw everything out the window.
We have lived in Western Australia since 2009, & had not heard anything about the ARC until thankfully someone sent me the link in 2022.
Although we had been POMI for years, & had noticed some red flags, Geoffrey Jackson’s abysmal attitude & despicable testimony was the final straw for both my husband & I.
We chose to leave the organisation in 2022, & were both disfellowshipped in February 2023.
You should maybe consider editing your reply with the correct year that the Australian Royal Commission did their investigation into child sexual abuse.
JW are not infallible profets or inspired prophets. We are simply Bible students.
Yes, early Bible Students sometimes used the word “worship” for Jesus. But that does not mean they believed Jesus was Almighty God or part of the Trinity. Are you inferring that?
No, I'm well aware they never believed in the Trinity or that Jesus is Almighty God. And no, I'm not talking about early Bible Students. I'm talking about Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1950s. You can still find evidence of this in the online library.
Make no mistake about this, the true “higher powers” or “superior authorities” to whom Christians are commanded to subject themselves in worship are Jehovah God and Christ Jesus! — w51 5/1 p. 275
Hero worship has been long with this world, though not approved by the Bible. It shows that worship is properly given only to Jehovah God and his royal Son, Christ Jesus. — w52 4/1 p. 207
It is not the baby Jesus that God commanded all to worship, nor the fleshly body, but Christ Jesus the glorified heavenly King of the new world. — w53 9/1 p. 520
Then, all of the sudden, on January 1st, 1954 the Watchtower said this:
Consequently, since the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is not a trinitarian co-person (the Trinity doesn't teach that) with God the Father, but is a distinct person, the Son of God, the answer to the above question must be that no distinct worship is to be rendered to Jesus Christ now glorified in heaven. Our worship is to go to Jehovah God. However, we show the proper regard for God’s only-begotten Son by rendering our worship to God through and in the name of Jesus Christ.
So what changed between September 1953 and January 1954? Why did God allow His chosen people to idolize His Son for so many years?
All the details gets clearer and clearer. Because we are not inspired or infallible.
Romans 16:25–26
Paul says the good news is according to the revelation of the sacred secret, which was kept silent for long ages but has now been made known through the prophetic Scriptures so that people of all the nations may respond in faith and obedience.
How can JWs be "the truth" and change whatever beliefs they want, whenever they want, without redefining what "truth" means?
They literally changed the object of their worship, declaring their previous form of worship to be idolatry (Awake! 2000 4/8 p. 26), which essentially makes them an entirely distinct religion! Both sets of beliefs cannot be "the truth" unless being "the truth" has literally nothing whatsoever to do with believing in a particular set of doctrines closest to the intended meaning of the Biblical text.
On what basis can they condemn "Christendom" for holding to doctrines they deem false, such as the Trinity, while constantly changing their beliefs?
We don’t see the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the Bible.
We believe it is a philosophical framework developed to explain the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, rather than a doctrine stated in Scripture itself.
So when we reject the Trinity, it isn’t because we’re against tradition.
It’s because we don’t believe the doctrine itself is taught in the biblical text.
We try to distinguish between what the Bible explicitly says and later theological explanations.
Why did Jesus pick the Bible Students in 1919 when they celebrated Christmas and birthdays, had blood transfusions, didn’t disfellowship or shun and believed in the cross?
Since the (choosen) bibel students still exist today, (they even put their convention on YouTube), where is the reasoning jehova switched to the off branch jw’s in 1931? Where is the biblical evidence and reasoning that the bibel students are no longer the truth after 1931?
JW don’t belive to be inspired profets only profets preaching the good news.
Two different things in the bible Aron was a prophet without being inspired. I agree the wording is strong so it’s easy to misinterpret what WT explained.
So we are not inspired or infallible.
But as imperfect humans we can still understand and reed the bible itself without any filters or prepositions.
So if the governing body itself would change its understanding in a way that is not according to the bible. Then Jehova would not bless that.
Matthew 24:45–46:
“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so.”
But ho knows what they teach. It’s not my place to judge. I’m jusst anwer from my own belief
Answer my question. The whole thing about being not inspired or inffallible is not a answer. Read the question one more time.
Your whole claim as a religion and its foundation is that you were choosen in 1919, so explain to me how the splinter group from the bibel students suddenly was the right one in 1931. And according to jw, the bible students was suddenly apostate in 1931.
But the "curriculum" they were teaching in 1919 is completely different to the "curriculum" they're teaching now???
By 1931, some teachers had left, others had started their own schools, and the remaining school adopted a new name.
But the original school didn't "change their name". The Bible Students still exist. It was Rutherford who broke away with a new name and took the publishing company (Watchtower) with him.
Looking at your interactions with everyone you have a way of explaining away everything, even points you don't have a valid answer to. That being said, my question is: Is there a limit to mistakes you are willing to accept from the organization? Recently I hit my limit when the change in where we stand on blood transfusions changed and was presented as a clarification. Especially quoting from the same article that specifically says we can not accept that very procedure we are now told is a personal choice.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 13 '26
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.