Archive for the ‘Jehovahs Witnesses’ Category

Jesus Continues Subordinate

March 14, 2011

Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. It’s been a really busy weekend so I apologize for not having any blogs up. I hope I can get enough breathing room tomorrow that I can really catch up on them. Anyway, I am continuing of course the study into the Watchtower and their booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Tonight, we’re going to look more at the topic of Jesus continuing subordinate.

The Watchtower asks how if Jesus had been God he could have been exalted to a higher place. It’s really simple. In Philippians, Jesus had himself submitted to a lower place when he took on the form of a servant. Because he was righteous as a servant, he was given a throne from which to rule. His exaltation points to the exaltation that we will have later as we will share in the glory. The victory of Christ becomes our victory.

The Watchtower says that in Hebrews, we are told that Jesus appeared before God on our behalf. They ask that if you appear in someone’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot.

To which, every Trinitarian says, “Amen.”

This is again the assumption of unipersonalism that the Watchtower makes. They assume that God is one person and then state, “Jesus appeared before God, therefore Jesus is not God because Jesus is distinct from the one person of God.”

But if you just say “Jesus appeared before the Father”, the problem disappears. This is exactly what we say as Trinitarians.

Then, Acts 7 is referred to where Stephen is said to see two individuals and no Holy Spirit.

Although I was wondering just how one was supposed to see a Spirit. I suppose since Elisha’s servant couldn’t see the angels until his eyes were opened, that meant that they weren’t there.

Once again, I have no problem with Acts 7, although I wonder what the Watchtower will do with it since they also make a point about verses like John 1:18 that say that no one has ever seen God. Are they saying that Stephen literally saw God in his divine vision?

In Revelation, Jesus has to take the scroll from God, therefore, says the Watchtower, Jesus is not God.

Because we all know in centuries of Christian history no one ever noticed that part.

Or could it be that the Son was being displayed as one worthy and thus the action takes place that way. Keep in mind that this is apocalyptic literature. By the standards of the Watchtower, we can suppose that Jesus is literally a lamb based on how this happens. Note that in Revelation 5 at the end, all creation worships He who sits on the throne and the Lamb. The Lamb is not included in creation.

While the Watchtower quotes a source later, they do not state where in the source their information can be found. However, in it, I simply see the same mistakes we’ve already dealt with. The Watchtower is making the assumption of unipersonalism. The sad reality is that Christians are swayed by this.

Don’t be one of them. Don’t let your neighbor be one either.

We shall continue next time.


Limited Knowledge

March 11, 2011

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve lately been looking at the Watchtower pamphlet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Tonight, we’re going to be studying the topic of Jesus’s limited knowledge. This is a common objection and frankly, it is the first objection I can really see as one that can legitimately trouble some people. The rest fall on bad understanding, but this one does require more knowledge to it.

Why is it that Jesus did not know the day or hour of his return? What does it mean to say that Jesus learned obedience from what he suffered? Why is it that the revelation was given to Him? These are good questions and for an effective Christology, they need to be answered.

For Christians, the answer is that indeed, Jesus did not know some things. Why? Because he came as a human and as such, he took upon himself limitations. I believe that Jesus was only given knowledge that was absolutely essential to his mission. The knowledge of when he would come again in Matthew 24, however you interpret it, was not essential and frankly, we can be thankful in some ways I’m sure that he did not tell us.

Why did Jesus learn obedience? Jesus was a human for the first time and for the first time, he experienced what it means to obey God in the space-time continuum. Of course it would be something new. Jesus had to submit to the Father as a human and in doing so, he was being what we are all supposed to be.

Why was the revelation given to him? Again, Jesus was the servant and all the knowledge he had was coming from the source. Of course, I always like to take Witnesses to Revelation 19:12 where we are introduced to the man riding on the white horse, and there’s no doubt it’s Jesus. What are we told? He has a name that no one knows save he himself.

Ah. Are we to assume that God the Father does not know the name? If we interpret the verse the way Jehovah’s Witnesses do, then yes.

The reality is that passages like these being used indicate that more than anything, we need to be developing our Christology more and more. The reason the Witnesses have such great success is not I believe so much because of what they are doing, although we should certainly wish to have their zeal for evangelism. The reason they have such success is because of a biblical illiteracy and this is largely on the part of Christians.

What do we do? Churches ought to be trainers of their people. No. Not everyone can be an apologist. The pastor should have a basic knowledge of apologetics but even he is not necessarily to specialize in that. However, he should know someone who he can refer to who will be there to help someone. Could it actually be that it would help if every church had a member on staff who was a trained apologist?

It just might.

We shall continue later.

God Superior At All Times

March 10, 2011

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re through the Watchtower booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity? “Right now, we’re discussing the objections that the Watchtower raises. Tonight’s will be similar to last night’s, but there are some different objections.

The idea that the Watchtower wants to show is that God is superior at all times, yet once again they are making “The Father” synonymous with God. When God says “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved” the Watchtower asks if God was saying that he was His Son, sent Himself, and approved Himself.

It’s a shame any Christian would fall for such a statement. I hope readers of this blog are better informed and realize that the Watchtower has presented a straw man. Are we to think none of the Trinitarians in church history noticed that the Father sent the Son?

No. It’s not that God the Father sent God the Father. God the Father sent God the Son. There is no contradiction there and as we pointed out yesterday, there is nothing about superiority since it does not effect ontology, the being that one is. What the Watchtower has done is actually give a fine argument against modalism. In doing so, they’re ironically making a point Trinitarians WANT to be made.

Does the giving of authority indicate superiority? Not unless every time in human history a boss has promoted someone it’s been because they are superior. Would Caesar be superior to a governor by ontology? Would the centurion would be superior to the soldiers that he sent to talk to Jesus? The Watchtower consistently confuses function with essence.

The Watchtower says that Jesus told the mother of James and John that to sit at his right and left belonged to his Father, that is, God. However, here the Watchtower makes clear their misrepresentation. They have equated God with the Father so that any time you make a case for Jesus being God, they think you are saying he is the Father. If you demonstrate that Jesus is not the Father then, for a follower of the Watchtower, you demonstrate that he is not God. This only works however if God is unipersonal, which the Watchtower has yet to demonstrate.

The Watchtower returns to their straw man with Jesus praying about the cross and asking if the cup could be removed. Was Jesus praying to himself or to part of himself? No. This is confusing Jesus with the Father and confusing Jesus with the entirety of the Trinity. No Trinitarian makes these kinds of arguments, yet here the Watchtower tries to present to people that they are giving an honest impression of the Trinity.

For the sake of argument, I and other Trinitarians could be entirely wrong on what we believe. We’re not, but I could say that for the sake of argument, I’d grant that. That does not mean the criticisms of the Watchtower are true. You can have bad arguments against a false position. I’m not a believer in macroevolutionary theory at the moment for instance, but I know that there are bad arguments against it that should not be used. A lot of Christians use them thinking since they’re arguing against a position they believe to be false, they’re serving God. God is best served by good arguments, not bad ones. If you think your arguments are good, they should be enough to make the other side at least think their position is being fairly represented.

The Watchtower also says that if Jesus was God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong as it says God does not die. However, did God die? No. The human being who happens to have the same ontological nature as God died. The deity did not die however. The Bible says that the highest heavens cannot contain God in 1 Kings 8, yet when we read in the Israel wanderings, we see that God dwelt in the tabernacle. Can a tabernacle contain God? Then if so, 1 Kings 8 is wrong.

No. God’s presence was made manifest in areas like the tabernacle. God was not limited to that place however. It’s interesting that the idea also of John 1:14 is that Jesus tabernacled among us. When Jesus died, God did not die. (In fact, the early church argued against the idea that the Father suffered throuuh Son on the cross.) The human Jesus died, but the Son as God never suffered. The death was also not a sham. He really was dead and he gave his life to God, to which God granted that life back in a new and glorified state.

What about miracles? It’s not that Jesus did miracles, but how he did them. He claimed the finger of God at work in his miracles. He claimed to do them in his name. Elijah would not have gone around saying “In my name, I command you to be healed.” Jesus did. Jesus saw his miracles as the direct act of God on Earth through his person in a unique way. He was God’s presence on Earth bringing about what would be the new kingdom.

It’s really sad to read argumentation like that of the Watchtower and sadder still that some Christians deconvert over it. We can do better. No one should deconvert over weak argumentation like this.

We shall continue next time.

God’s Submissive Servant

March 9, 2011

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through lately the Watchtower booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Currently, the Watchtower in our study is presenting arguments against the Trinity. Tonight, we’re going to look at the case of Jesus being God’s submissive servant.

To begin with, it’s important to note that a believer in the Trinity does believe that Jesus was a submissive servant to God. Thus, if the Watchtower wants to present this as evidence prima facie that Jesus is not ontologically equal to the Father, then it falls flat with just that statement. They do want to do a bit more as they want to show why that should be a problem for Trinitarianism. Let’s see if it is.

We are given a verse like John 5:19 where Jesus says he only does what he sees the Father doing. The Watchtower presents verses like this as if it would be a problem. What do they expect we think they should say if Jesus was ontologically equal to God?

“I do what I want and if the Father doesn’t want to do it, I do it anyway.”

“I come to teach my doctrine. What the Father teaches does not have to agree.”

“I did not come to do the will of my Father. I came to do my own will.”

Each of these would be highly contrary statements to both the doctrine of the Watchtower and Trinitarianism. They are not a problem for us however, nor do I think in themselves they would be one for the Watchtower. Trinitarians have never had a problem with Jesus doing the will of the Father and submitting to that perfectly in every angle. That’s what he was supposed to do in the life of a perfect man.

The Watchtower asks if the one who sends is superior to the one who is sent, but there is an equivocation here. When the centurion sends his servants to Jesus to ask him to come heal his sick servant, surely the centurion was superior to the servants, but in what way? Was the centurion superior in humanity or was he higher in rank? When a wife submits to her husband in a biblical way, is she doing so because she is inferior to her husband? (I would love to have a husband and wife couple use a superiority type argument like this and then get to ask the wife how inferior she is in humanity to her husband.)

The Watchtower assumes that lower in rank means lower in nature. That does not follow. The example that we have shown demonstrate that. Now to be fair, it could mean that. God is superior to the angels and the angels are described as servants. (Note that Jesus is also described as superior) That one has to submit to another is necessary to show superiority of essence, but it is not sufficient. Because there is submission, that does not prove that there is superiority of essence.

Because the followers of Jesus viewed him as God’s submissive servant, it does not rule out their viewing him as deity.

We shall continue next time.

Jesus Distinguished From God

March 8, 2011

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re going to continue our study tonight of the Watchtower booklet “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” We’re right now looking at the objections that the Watchtower raises and tonight we’re going to discuss how the Watchtower says Jesus is distinguished from God.

The problem the Watchtower has is similar to one addressed earlier. The Watchtower does not realize that generally in New Testament usage, God was used to refer to the Father and Lord was used to refer to Jesus Christ. One could say that God is distinguished from the Lord in the New Testament, therefore God must not be the Lord. This is fallacious, but it’s the same kind of argument that the Watchtower is presenting.

Thus, we do not expect to find Jesus referred to as God explicitly many times as that would have led to confusion. Why call two persons within the same sentence God? There are other ways to say that Jesus has ontological equality with the Father and I believe that those have been done. However, this is not the place for that as we are here simply examining the arguments the Watchtower puts forward.

The Watchtower states that Paul had no problem speaking of God and Jesus as separate and cites 1 Cor. 8:6. Indeed, this is the kind of example I am speaking about. By their standard, God is separate from the Lord and therefore God cannot be said to be the Lord.

What’s more problematic however is the scholarly work of Richard Bauckham in “God Crucified” where he argues persuasively that what Paul is doing in a text like this is in fact Christianizing the great Shema of Israel. Lord and God were both referred to and Paul is making a strong statement of monotheism. If Bauckham is correct, and I think he is, then Paul is not arguing against Jesus being ontologically equal with God, but is rather going to great lengths to show that Jesus fits into the divine identity.

The Watchtower also gives us John 8:17-18 which has Jesus saying that he is one witness and the Father is another. How could this be unless they were two separate entities? The irony I find in this is that this is a passage that I regularly use when I argue against modalists and point to this passage to show that Jesus and the Father are two separate persons. Indeed, this is what Jesus says. He says his Father is one witness and He is another. He does not say God.

Finally, Mark 10:18 has the rich young ruler referring to Jesus as good teacher and Jesus says “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” The Watchtower says Jesus is denying that He is as good as God. Where is the denial? Jesus is just stating that only God is truly good. He is not saying outright that he himself is. Note also that in the ancient world, one would not answer this question saying “Yep! You’d better say I’m good!” That would be seen as trying to claim honor unjustly for oneself. Jesus gave a humble answer and left it to the man to work out the implications.

Again, I am not convinced by anything the Watchtower has said so far. It’s also worth noting that so far no Trinitarians have been cited in these arguments.

We shall continue later.

Was Jesus Considered To Be God?

March 7, 2011

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through lately the Watchtower booklet “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Thus far, our conclusion has been that the Watchtower has not given us a reason to not believe in it. This is not so much about giving evidence for the Trinity but rather answering the “arguments” as to why we shouldn’t.

Today, we’re going to look at the question of if Jesus was considered to be God. The Watchtower states that Son of God did not mean that Jesus was God, or as we would say, God the Son. In itself, they are correct in this. Others were also called sons of God. The question however is if Jesus was one son among many or if there was something different about him.

It is true that ones like the centurion at the cross said that Jesus was the son of God, but what would this mean? For a Roman, it would not be monotheism, but at least the recognition that Jesus was a divine being. He was no ordinary man. His death and what happened would have shown that Jesus was to be seen as a king. If we take all the events as literal, that is fine. If we take them as apocalyptic, then that does not damage the belief that Jesus is seen as a king.

The Watchtower says that Jesus was seen as the Son of God and that there is only one God. They are correct, but the problem is they are assuming unipersonalism. God is one and the Father is God therefore the Father alone is God. If by one, it means one person, then they would be correct. They have not shown that this is what it means. For Jesus, it would mean that He is the Son of the Father, not the Son of Himself as some, including atheistic critics, would say.

The Watchtower tells us that Jesus is the mediator between God and men. They tell us that a mediator must be other than the parties they represent, so Jesus could not be God. Well if that’s the case, then why should I believe that he can in fact be man? By that standard, Jesus could not have been a man to be our mediator. Of course, it could be that if they are consistent with their beliefs on Jesus being Michael, they will deny the humanity of Christ, however the text itself says that there is one mediator, the MAN Christ Jesus.

A Trinitarian however can say that the mediator between the Father and men is the man Jesus Christ. He can mediate because he is both God and man. There can be no better mediator. The Son can mediate because He is not sinful humanity, though He is human, and He is not the Father, though He has ontological equality with the Father.

Thus, is there a distinction between the Father and the Son in Scripture? Absolutely. That is essential for Trinitarianism. There is a distinction between Peter and Paul in Scripture, yet both are fully human. The Watchtower is just making the assumption of unipersonalism, probably the #1 mistake critics of the Trinity make.

We shall continue next time.

How The “Only-Begotten Son?”

March 6, 2011

Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve lately been looking at the Watchtower booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” We’re on the section now offering arguments against the Trinity with a focus now on who Jesus is. Tonight, we’re going to address what is said about Jesus being the only-begotten Son.

The Watchtower begins with saying that Trinitarians say that the Son is eternal, but how can a Son be as old as his Father? My first thought in response to this is that it makes no sense to me to say the Father is old. That is placing God on a chronological timeline as if to say “God’s been around a long time!” Yes. God exists everlasting to everlasting, but He does not age and He does not celebrate birthdays. He cannot be measured chronologically.

However, we could also look at the point about a son being as old as his father and say “And whoever heard of a father having a son without a mother?” However, the Watchtower surely would not say that Jesus’s existence began in the womb of Mary but that He did pre-exist.

The idea of Father and Son is analogical language so we should not expect one-to-one correspondence. God is not just like us. He is not like us in any way. We are like Him. When the day comes that my wife and I have children, should we have a son, we could not say “Well we have a son and His way is kind of like ours.” No. He has a Son and our way is meant to be kind of like that, though of course different as it is temporal.

The Watchtower goes on however to say the following:

Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus’ case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?

To begin with, an English dictionary is a terrible place to go to to define biblical words. Vine’s is a much better source thankfully. However, why would they say we believe Jesus is the only-begotten, except that Jesus is not begotten? This is a misrepresentation entirely by the Watchtower. Of course, it’s easy to do for them since they cite no Trinitarians.

The Watchtower tells us the same word for only-begotten is also used for Isaac and there can be no doubt that Isaac was begotten in the normal sense.

If you mean through sexual intercourse, yes, that is so. (Though keep in mind Jesus was not begotten in this way. Even if we believed the Son had a beginning, how can it be considered “normal”?) However, I do not know of anyone who believes it’s normal for 90 year-old women to get pregnant through sexual intercourse.

It can’t even mean firstborn for Isaac! Ishamel was there before Isaac was. So if the Watchtower wants to say that Jesus is only-begotten in the sense that he was the firstborn, that will not apply to Isaac then. Could it be that Isaac is the only-begotten in that he is defined by his unique relationship to his father?

The Watchtower quickly concludes that Jesus was begotten in time. If that is so, then they have a problem with wisdom. Wisdom is said to be begotten as well, so was there a moment in time that God was not wise, and then He begot wisdom, and after that He became wise?

Or could it be that God begot in the sense that He brought forth that which was always with Him, His Son?

Yes. Could it actually be that what Christians have taught for centuries has been correct?

We shall continue tomorrow.

How Much Was The Ransom?

March 5, 2011

Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Apologies for not having blogs the past two days but I’ve been quite busy. Anyway, we’ve lately been going through the Watchtower booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Right now, we’re looking at some arguments that are raised against the Trinity. Tonight, we look at the topic of the ransom.

A problem with the Watchtower in this regards is that they assume a ransom theory of the atonement. Now there have been some who have held to such a view, but if you do not, then you won’t find this argument convincing. In fact, even if you do, I’d say you shouldn’t find this argument convincing. Unfortunately, many Christians haven’t done any thinking on the atonement so when the Witnesses arrive, this is their first introduction to the idea and then they get a quick “refutation” of that idea.

The Watchtower points to 1 Timothy 2:5 where we are told that Christ was a corresponding ransom to us. There’s only one problem. I don’t see a basis anywhere for the word “corresponding” to be added. This has been something the Watchtower has been guilty of before, such as adding “other” four times in Col. 1:15-18.

The idea the Watchtower wants to present is that if Jesus was fully God, the price that was paid for the ransom would be too much and that would be unjust.

After all, we know God never blesses anyone beyond what they deserve…

The Watchtower teaches that Jesus would pay an infinite price if He was in the Godhead. I’d have no problem with that because our crime is against an infinite being. We have violated the standards of God. Now I do believe that some sins are worse than others, but I believe all sins are ultimately done against God and all of them merit us being cast out of His loving presence for all eternity.

However, I still think the worst situation here is not that the Watchtower does not understand the gravity of sin, but they don’t understand the goodness of grace. If I could have you understand only one, I believe it would be grace as grace is an action of God and sin is an action of man. I think it’s more important to understand God’s actions than ours. Of course, we do need some understanding of what we do. A doctrine of man is quite important.

My wife and I got a real reminder of how the Watchtower does not understand grace with our last Witnesses that visited us. On the last visit they had, they got up and left right in the middle of my reading Ephesians 2:8-9. I added as they left that I found it very revealing that when the teaching of salvation by grace through faith is given, that they leave.

One other point to make. The Watchtower also asks how if Jesus was in the Godhead he could ever be lower than the angels. It is quite clear and quite amazing both. Jesus did it to show the depths that God is willing to go to reach the lost. Again, I am not surprised the Watchtower does not understand grace. When you dialogue with Witnesses, I recommend going for the salvation question as well. It’s one they have a very hard time with.

We shall continue next time.

Could God Be Tempted?

March 2, 2011

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve lately been going through the Watchtower booklet called “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Tonight, we’re going to be looking at an argument they give to argue against Jesus’s ontological equality with God and that’s asking if God could be tempted.

The reality is that this kind of argument is so weak, that I almost hate having to write a blog on it. However, it has been included and so I will deal with it.

This one deals with the temptation. It’s asking if it really makes sense to have the temptation narratives in there since if Jesus is God, he couldn’t really be tempted. However, at this point, it is important to note that there are two kinds of temptations that exist.

Some temptations are internal. They’re based pretty much entirely on evil desires we have in us. We can think evil of things that are good and think good of things that are evil. Jesus did not have this and I believe we could say that Adam and Eve did not have this as well.

Of course, that leaves a kind that Adam and Eve did succumb to and that’s desires from without. This is the kind of temptation that the devil gave to Jesus. After all, the devil was an external agent to Jesus. We also know about these kinds of temptations. We can be tempted with greed easily when seeing a large sum of money or we can be tempted with lust when seeing an attractive person of the opposite sex. Think of the old cartoons where a little devil and a little angel appeared on someone’s shoulders. Many of us know that little devil well.

The Witnesses ask if it would make any sense if Jesus could not have given into the temptation. Whether he could have or not is a debate within Christendom. However, at this point, it is also irrelevant. Jesus was fulfilling two different roles in this case on the path to the cross.

The first role is that of the second Adam. Jesus succeeded where Adam fell. As Adam was tempted, so was Jesus tempted. We know that Paul refers to Jesus as the second Adam as well. Since Jesus is the new man, he undergoes the testings to show that as he overcame, we can overcome as well.

The second role is that of the new Israel. Matthew 2 has Jesus coming out of Egypt, as Israel did. Matthew 3 has him being baptized, as Israel was in the Red Sea according to Paul. Matthew 4 has him in the wilderness being tempted as was Israel. Finally, Matthew 5 has him climbing the mountain, but this time instead of receiving the Law, he is giving it.

Can God be tempted? No. However, no one is saying that Jesus in his deity was tempted. They are saying that Jesus in his humanity was tempted, and he passed! What does that tell us? It tells us that as Jesus relied on God and Scripture to overcome temptation, so can we.

We continue next time.

Jesus A Separate Creation?

March 1, 2011

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we’re continuing our look at the Watchtower booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” We’re finally coming to the topic of Jesus, which when the Witnesses visit me and want to go through “What Does The Bible Really Teach?”, I always want to skip ahead to the chapter on who is Jesus. Well let’s see what the Watchtower says.

We agree with the Watchtower that Jesus’s existence did not begin with the conception in Mary. The Watchtower says Jesus’s life force was transferred to the womb of Mary. (Again, note that such terminology you don’t see in the Bible. It’s wrong when it’s the Trinity you don’t see explicitly stated, but when it comes to life force being transferred, which in this case is that of the archangel Michael, it’s okay) Of course, we don’t hold to such a position here.

The Watchtower asks if his existence was as a person of an eternal triune Godhead. They answer no. The Bible plainly states that Jesus in his prehuman existence was a created spirit being.

Plainly states of course meaning “We teach that and even if we don’t have explicit chapter and verse, it’s okay anyway because we teach it, unlike those Trinitarians.”

Of course, we see Colossians 1:15 used. What the Witnesses miss is that this is a verse describing ontology and not chronology. Technically, if Jesus was the firstborn of creation, then it would really mean creation produced Jesus. What it really is doing is describing Jesus’s relation to the creation. Jesus is the Lord over all of creation. I have dealt more with this objection here.

Of course, that’s followed with Revelation 3:14. The Watchtower says John uses the word “Arche” for beginning several times and it always means a beginning. Of course, word usage is not determined by how often a word is used one way, but how it is used in the sentence it is used. In this case, it refers to the origin due to the other statements of deity in John and that John is likely using wisdom theology to show that Jesus is the means of the creation of God.

Speaking of wisdom, the Watchtower goes there immediately. They want to say Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is Jesus. Good! I agree! Unfortunately, if they really read the passage the way they intend to, they have a problem. Question to my Witness friends! When was God ever unwise? Did God create wisdom and then add wisdom to His nature? Was He an unwise God prior? Did He change to become wise even though Scripture tells us that He does not change?

More of my thoughts on that can be found here.

In fact, the very verses they use are central to the idea of Wisdom sharing in the divine identity. In the New Testament consistently, Jesus is seen as the means for God creating and the Father is seen as the source, the creator. This is not a problem. Unknowingly, the Watchtower has actually created a wonderful Trinitarian argument.

Next time, we’ll look further at some “objections” the Watchtower raises.