Ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[Randy Carson]

Gee, I didn't know there were any conditions to your offer to answer questions. But okay, here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it:

Sorry, I should have clarified. I just wanted context before I answered... So those scriptures that you mentioned. They are a series of scriptures that are making me doubt. Not the truth about god but rather, if the scriptures do not have divine backing then clearly its impossible for there to be singularity in the teachings. That being said, in the book of Revelation, there are obvious scriptures that are being applied to Jesus that call him the first and the last. And there is a scripture that is clearly applied to Jehovah that also uses the same moniker, "first and last." So is this like the term, "greatest of all time"? I could refer to Jack Nicklaus as the greatest of all time in golf and Muhamed Ali as the greatest of all time in boxing. No one would say that they are the same person or that the term "GOAT" has the same application. So is the first and last phrase required to mean the same application? I don't think so. So is this like a Muhammad Ali and cacious clay type of thing? Same person but different names? Maybe, but when I read the New Testament as a whole, Jesus own words imply that God is separate from him and a greater being than he is. So the few scriptures that seem to imply that they are the same should be taken with the entire context of the entire NT. 

Sorry for the delayed response. Remind me if I missed a specific point you raised

When we are referring to Jack Nicklaus and Mohammed Ali, we are referring to people who are known for their acheivement in their respective sports. Michael Jordan played what sport? (he played baseball, too). Bo Jackson was a famous ______ player (football or baseball? He was both.).

Now, there are how many gods? One. 

So, in the context of sacred scripture, when the text refers to God and Jesus as the "First as the Last" and that the "First and the Last" died, we can know that the text is equating Jesus with God.

[JuliaL]

---

Sorry, I should have clarified. I just wanted context before I answered... So those scriptures that you mentioned. They are a series of scriptures that are making me doubt. Not the truth about god but rather, if the scriptures do not have divine backing then clearly its impossible for there to be singularity in the teachings. That being said, in the book of Revelation, there are obvious scriptures that are being applied to Jesus that call him the first and the last. And there is a scripture that is clearly applied to Jehovah that also uses the same moniker, "first and last." So is this like the term, "greatest of all time"? I could refer to Jack Nicklaus as the greatest of all time in golf and Muhamed Ali as the greatest of all time in boxing. No one would say that they are the same person or that the term "GOAT" has the same application. So is the first and last phrase required to mean the same application? I don't think so. So is this like a Muhammad Ali and cacious clay type of thing? Same person but different names? Maybe, but when I read the New Testament as a whole,

---

Jesus own words imply that God is separate from him and a greater being than he is.

---

So the few scriptures that seem to imply that they are the same should be taken with the entire context of the entire NT.

Sorry for the delayed response. Remind me if I missed a specific point you raised

---

---

When we are referring to Jack Nicklaus and Mohammed Ali, we are referring to people who are known for their acheivement in their respective sports. Michael Jordan played what sport? (he played baseball, too). Bo Jackson was a famous ______ player (football or baseball? He was both.).

---

Now, there are how many gods? One.

---

So, in the context of sacred scripture, when the text refers to God and Jesus as the "First as the Last" and that the "First and the Last" died, we can know that the text is equating Jesus with God.

---

WOOT!

It's a proof by assertion fight backed up by custom interpretation of alleged holy writ!
GAME ON!

[Randy Carson]

---

Sorry, I should have clarified. I just wanted context before I answered... So those scriptures that you mentioned. They are a series of scriptures that are making me doubt. Not the truth about god but rather, if the scriptures do not have divine backing then clearly its impossible for there to be singularity in the teachings. That being said, in the book of Revelation, there are obvious scriptures that are being applied to Jesus that call him the first and the last. And there is a scripture that is clearly applied to Jehovah that also uses the same moniker, "first and last." So is this like the term, "greatest of all time"? I could refer to Jack Nicklaus as the greatest of all time in golf and Muhamed Ali as the greatest of all time in boxing. No one would say that they are the same person or that the term "GOAT" has the same application. So is the first and last phrase required to mean the same application? I don't think so. So is this like a Muhammad Ali and cacious clay type of thing? Same person but different names? Maybe, but when I read the New Testament as a whole,

---

Jesus own words imply that God is separate from him and a greater being than he is.

---

So the few scriptures that seem to imply that they are the same should be taken with the entire context of the entire NT.

Sorry for the delayed response. Remind me if I missed a specific point you raised

---

---

When we are referring to Jack Nicklaus and Mohammed Ali, we are referring to people who are known for their acheivement in their respective sports. Michael Jordan played what sport? (he played baseball, too). Bo Jackson was a famous ______ player (football or baseball? He was both.).

---

Now, there are how many gods? One.

---

So, in the context of sacred scripture, when the text refers to God and Jesus as the "First as the Last" and that the "First and the Last" died, we can know that the text is equating Jesus with God.

---

WOOT!

It's a proof by assertion fight backed up by custom interpretation of alleged holy writ!
GAME ON!

Julia-

I'm speaking with a JW. We agree that there is only one God, okay?

I would choose my words differently if I were speaking to a Hindu or an atheist.

Fair enough?

[The Grand Nudger]

No...you actually don't agree to that.  So no, not really all that fair. You didn't know that about JW's? No more fair than the assumptions made by our resident agnostic JW in arguing -against- the trinity in "that other thread" which, ironically...this threads turned into a retarded mirror image of. -Your- translations keep the distinctions intact (but make the same attribute and ground leveling claims) whereas -his- remove them...but retain the attribute and ground leveling claims.

Here, lets take a look at the NIV side by side with the NWT. John 1:1

NIV -In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NWT-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was a god.


Bolding is mine, in case you missed the tiny, single letter alteration...which has cascading implications the further down the rabbit hole we go - and this is the reason that you two could -never- come to an agreement upon the abovementioned together without one or the other of you esposuing positions contrary to your respective traditions. This is -the- schismatic split between catholics and jw's. Both groups seem to be equally clueless in this regard. /shrugs

[Randy Carson]

No...you actually don't agree to that.  So no, not really all that fair.  You didn't know that about JW's?

I see. JW's are not monotheists, eh?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, but they -feel- like monotheists, to hear them tell it.  It;s one of those hot button things that can get them off your doorstep in a hurry (as we've seen).  JW's, btw, effectively prey (no, not pray) on catholics falling out of the faith.  That's their bread and butter both geographically and demographically.  You might find that their apologetics often take the form of "an argument against catholicism".  They have their reasons (some well argued, granted).  They don't often realize that it is the -disinterest- of catholics (particularly young catholics) in the catechism, and not -the lack of scriptural justification- that leads to a situation whereby those tactics can be effective.  So they keep doing what works, picking off the people who are weakest in their knowledge of the faith - even though they are a very unique -non monotheistic (though not overtly polytheistic)- offshoot of christendom and would not, thusly, seem to have any further credibility to those monotheistic christians they ardently desire to convert.  

That christians can be and often are hapless rubes ought to go without saying, but this relationship really drives that point home.   

*I can give you the polytheistic rationalizations..but they're all convoluted, meandering...and won't change your mind, btw.  In a nutshell, JW's believe that Jehovah God is the only god -worthy of worship-....that Jehovah God is the most powerful of the gods, not that Jehovah is the only god which exists.  Simple enough?

[Whateverist]

So, in the context of sacred scripture, when the text refers to God and Jesus as the "First as the Last" and that the "First and the Last" died, we can know that the text is equating Jesus with God.

I'd go even further and concede that you can always know what you like. You are on a mission to understand the world on your own (i.e., the bible's) terms. Nothing can deter you as your stubbornness is indeed strong. Sadly you are entirely lacking in faith and so permanently estranged from anything which could be god. But don't mind me. Go on, enlighten us some more on just how flexible your knowing can be.

[JuliaL]

Julia-

I'm speaking with a JW. We agree that there is only one God, okay?

---

I would choose my words differently if I were speaking to a Hindu or an atheist.

---

Fair enough?

Sure, only you're kinda vague on what the one is.

If you are both referring to the same god shouldn't your descriptions at least sort of match?
You've got the 3in1 god with Jesus in the mix as fully god and fully man.

And they've got:

"They believe that God created Michael the Archangel (inferior to God)
and through him later created the rest of creation. At a point in time,
Michael became man and was named Jesus. He was sinless and obedient to God.
He died for the sins of mankind. When he was
raised from the dead, only his spirit rose, not his body. As such, he resumed his identity
as Michael the Archangel.

Picked from random site with apparent Catholic leanings:
http://www.htdiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?...7&mid=1476

I'm not real conversant with Catholic teachings, but I don't think it includes this where angel becomes man becomes angel+dead body.

Do you have any way to quantify any of this? 
Like a god meter or something?  Not the 'feeling in your soul' but something I could build and get replicable results from.

[Won2blv]

Sorry, I should have clarified. I just wanted context before I answered... So those scriptures that you mentioned. They are a series of scriptures that are making me doubt. Not the truth about god but rather, if the scriptures do not have divine backing then clearly its impossible for there to be singularity in the teachings. That being said, in the book of Revelation, there are obvious scriptures that are being applied to Jesus that call him the first and the last. And there is a scripture that is clearly applied to Jehovah that also uses the same moniker, "first and last." So is this like the term, "greatest of all time"? I could refer to Jack Nicklaus as the greatest of all time in golf and Muhamed Ali as the greatest of all time in boxing. No one would say that they are the same person or that the term "GOAT" has the same application. So is the first and last phrase required to mean the same application? I don't think so. So is this like a Muhammad Ali and cacious clay type of thing? Same person but different names? Maybe, but when I read the New Testament as a whole, Jesus own words imply that God is separate from him and a greater being than he is. So the few scriptures that seem to imply that they are the same should be taken with the entire context of the entire NT. 

Sorry for the delayed response. Remind me if I missed a specific point you raised

When we are referring to Jack Nicklaus and Mohammed Ali, we are referring to people who are known for their acheivement in their respective sports. Michael Jordan played what sport? (he played baseball, too). Bo Jackson was a famous ______ player (football or baseball? He was both.).

Now, there are how many gods? One. 

So, in the context of sacred scripture, when the text refers to God and Jesus as the "First as the Last" and that the "First and the Last" died, we can know that the text is equating Jesus with God.

So what about When Paul referred to those in the Philipian congregation that let their bellies become their gods? Or 2 Corinthins where Paul refers to Satan as the god of this system. I believe in one almighty god. But that word god has multiple meanings. Even in John 1:1 it says that the word was WITH god and in some translations, it was god and some, it was A god. First of all, how can you be with something and it at the same time? Second of all, the grammar of the 2 words translated god in John 1:1 are different. The first is the definite article, the second is indefinite. I do believe that Jehovah would be the only uncaused cause in the universe. Even Colossians 1:15,16, Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of creation. That implies that Jesus had a cause. I know you are familiar with WLC's arguments so you should follow what I am getting at. And then we have Jesus' own words. He didn't do his own will but his fathers. He pleads with god to forgive those for what they don't know. He says that no one is good but the father in heaven. These are a few scriptures out of many that differentiate the two. So for me, I am not going to read a shared moniker and assume that the two are equal and the same. 

[Won2blv]

I don't think that Rhythms can speak for JW's at all. He knows a caricature versions of JW's that he has assembled in his mind. Thats it