Questions From Jehovah's Witnesses

Below are questions sent in by our Jehovah's Witness visitors. This list will be continually updated in the future as time permits. Jehovah's Witnesses, feel free to send in more questions.

  1. Why is Jesus called the "firstborn" of all creation" or the "beginning" of God's creation (Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14)? If it is some kind of title (status/position/authority), then it must also apply to the father and the Holy Ghost since they are also equal to Jesus according to trinity, right? Can you provide a scripture or scriptures that also call either the father or the Holy Ghost also "firstborn" of all creation or the "beginning" of God's creation or explicitly explain why Jesus would be the only one with this title? Furthermore, the term "firstborn of" does not only denote birth order (a child who was born before others) but also "a sense of belonging and inclusion". The "firstborn" is a subset of whatever (group, family, animal,....) one is a firstborn of! Thus "The firstborn of Israel" must be one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" must necessarily be one of Pharaoh's family; The first born of Jesse is one of the sons of Jesse; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. Then help me here: leaving out Jesus (Col. 1:15), can you give me one other single scripture where "firstborn" is actually excluded from or not part of whatever he/she is firstborn of (to conclusively suggest that Jesus is indeed not part of creation/not part of what was created)?

    ANSWER:
    These questions were partially answered already in the 'Invalid JW Arguments' section of this website.

    Regarding Rev. 3:14, you should compare other translations of the Bible other than yours. If you check your own Kingdom Interlinear Translation though, you can see they changed 'of God' to 'by God'. The true meaning of the verse is telling us that Jesus is the beginning, originator, or cause of all creation.

    Regarding Col. 1:15, no, the term does not need to apply to either the Father or the Holy Spirit too because that would mean they also would have fulfilled the role of firstborn. And it would also imply that they are identical in person. Just like Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not necessarily need to be called 'Father'. It was Jesus' unique role to be "firstborn".

    Yes, in a sense Jesus was the firstborn in regards to birth order. Even if firstborn is interpreted that way, it does not prove or disprove anything. And yes, he did have a sense of belonging and inclusion. The scriptures are clear that Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit (God). This is why he is called God's Son. So he could be called firstborn in this sense because he was the first born by the Holy Spirit.

    You asked for a verse where the "firstborn" is excluded from or not part of whatever he/she is firstborn of. Look at Revelation 1:5 where Jesus is called "firstborn" from the dead. Using your same logic as before, Jesus would have had to be the first human to ever die. Is this true? No! Using your same logic as before, Jesus would need to be a subset or member of the dead. Is this true? No! He not only is alive, but he is called ETERNAL (Isaiah 9:6). He also raised Lazarus (John 11:44), raised himself (John 2:19-21), and Jesus defeated death (2 Tim. 1:10).


  2. Why did Jesus say that he did not come of his "own initiative" but was sent (i.e even before he came here, he was subjected to someone else who could send him). See John 8:42, 1 John 4:9-10. If Jesus is God, the almighty, is he then not the one who actually took the initiative to save us? Was Jesus therefore, misleading us when he said that it was actually his father who took the initiative to send him?

    ANSWER:
    No, Jesus did not mislead anyone. Just because Jesus did not come on his own initiative and was sent by the Father, does not mean he is inferior to the Father. Nor does it mean he is not God Almighty. Just like a field service conductor who sends out Jehovah's Witnesses into field service is not superior to the Jehovah's Witnesses being sent out. It was the Father's role to send the Son and it was the Son's role to listen and humbly come and to die as a man. This does not mean he was not God though. Being humble is not the same as inferiority. Or else, his disciples would have been greater than him since Jesus washed their feet.

    One could also say that Jesus took much initiative. He had the power to prevent his death. Jesus had the power to give his life and he had the power to take it back (John 10:18). Jesus also had the power to call legions of angels to come and protect him before his death (Matthew 26:53). Both of these powers mentioned in those verses were given to him from the Father. So Jesus had the power not to proceed regardless of being sent from the Father. Furthermore, we all know the Father sent him for a specific purpose. This specific purpose was prophecied in the scriptures and we know scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). So it comes down to 2 options. First, Jehovah God made prophecy that had the possibility not to come true since Jesus could have overridden God's purpose and nullified prophecy. Or two, a much simpler option, that Jesus is in fact God in the flesh and this explains why he had so much power and it is also why he never would have nullified written prophecy. Option two is not only the simpler option, but it completely agrees with other scripture as well.


  3. If Jesus said that "the Father was greater than he is" in John 14:28, because he was a human here on earth, did the father not send him while he was still in heaven (John 4:34; John 5:30; John 6:38; John 6:57; John 7:16; John 12:49; John 17:8;)? If yes, please explain why he is equal to the father who sent him in light of what Jesus said in John 13:16? Was Jesus lying then when he said: "Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." in John 13:16(NIV)?

    ANSWER:
    Regarding John 14:28, yes, of course the Father sent Jesus from heaven. Jesus was on Earth when he said those words though! When he was on Earth and made that statement, he was not denying being God. He was simply acknowledging he was a man on Earth. He was in the form of God and humbly emptied himself and came into a body to die for us (Phil. 2:6-8). He was also a man born under the law (Galations 4:4). So at the time he spoke those words, the Father was greater than him for those reasons. That is all that was meant by John 14:28. The 'greater' mentioned here is only in regards to position while Jesus was on Earth.

    You seem to think of equality differently than many other people. A husband and wife should be considered as equals, but that doesn't mean the wife needs to be physically as strong as the husband. It doesn't mean the wife performs the same duties as the husband. Nor does it mean the wife is called 'husband'. A husband and wife each have their different roles and positions of authority, but they are still both humans. They are still equal in nature and essence. The same concept applies here.

    Regarding John 13:16, Jesus said the one who is sent (Jesus) is not greater than the sender (God the Father). Nobody is debating the fact that Jesus was sent from the Father. Nobody here ever said Jesus was greater than the one who sent him too. They are equal! Which totally agrees with John 13:16, because equal does not mean greater.


  4. At John 17:3, why did Jesus himself call his father, the "only true God"? And separate himself from that true God, by mentioning himself separately and in addition? If Jesus is God, does this not conclusively (beyond any doubts) prove that Jesus must then be a lesser God than his father, simply to mean that he is of the same divine nature as his father? While we are at this: where is the Holy Spirit mentioned here as another "third person" that we must know in order to have eternal life? Had Jesus forgotten that the Holy spirit is also as much part of God as he is himself?

    ANSWER:
    To start off, doctrine should not be built off one or two verses. The WHOLE Bible needs considered. Doctrine needs built after carefully considering all scripture together. So if the Bible calls Jesus God with a big 'G' and verses like Isaiah 44:6-8 say there is only one God and no one like him, then the JW doctrine has a real big problem. The whole Bible needs considered for true doctrine. So yes, it is true that in John 17:3 Jesus called the Father as the only true God. Isolating this verse seems to prove JW doctrine, but actually when considered along with other scripture, it really is no problem at all.

    The concept of the Trinity means that there are three distinct persons that share the one being of God. So Jesus calling the Father the only true God is completely true since the Father is God. It would also be true if he had said the same thing about the Holy Spirit. This statement by Jesus in no way means that Jesus himself is not God.

    Also, Jesus was on Earth as a man when he said this. Jesus was a man born under the Law (Galations 4:4). He obeyed the Law and we see from scripture how he was circumcised, attended the feasts, and so on. Since this is the case, as a man on Earth, he would have been subject to God the Father just like other Jews were. And it was perfectly fine and true for him to call the Father the only true God just like all the Jews under the law did.

    Let's use the same JW logic for other verses. Isaiah 43:11 would mean that you cannot accept Jesus as your Savior then. Because there it says that there is no savior except Jehovah. If Jehovah is our only Savior then Jesus cannot be our Savior if you use the same logic as you do with John 17:3. We all know that Jesus is our Savior though. This is just one example that shows JW logic is flawed.

    About the Holy Spirit, just because this passage does not mention the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not God. What you see here as a missing reference to the Holy Spirit does not prove or disprove anything. If you consider the whole Bible, you would see that the Holy Spirit is necessary for eternal life. For example, John 3:3-5, 1 Corinthians 12:3, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Having the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for our salvation.


  5. At 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, the one God that Paul recognizes is clearly the Father (this is clearly stated in that scripture, indicating that this is the same "one God" referred to in Deuteronomy 6:4 and John 17:3). Clearly Jesus is not included in that "one God" at all (because Jesus is mentioned separately and in addition to the "one God" as the "one Lord" in both 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John 17:3). Why would Paul make such statements, if Jesus is within God or is God, the almighty himself?

    ANSWER:
    Since 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 states that there is one Lord, Jesus, would this mean that Jehovah is not our Lord? Of course not! Likewise, just because this verses says that there is only one God, the Father, it doesn't mean that Jesus himself is not God. If you look at the argument in one way and not the other, you are being biased and unfair. It goes both ways. Jesus and Jehovah are both Lord just like Jesus and Jehovah are both God.

    Your argument can also be proven wrong by comparing other scriptures. We know that both Jesus and Jehovah are both our Lord. For example, in Deuteronomy 10:17 it says Jehovah is Lord of all. However, in Revelation 17:14 and 19:16 it says Jesus is Lord of all. Jude 4 clearly says just what 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 says, which is that Jesus is our ONLY Lord. So do we have a biblical contradiction here? Of course not! Jesus is Jehovah God and we only have one Lord. Unless you believe scriptures can contradict themselves, there must be a different interpretation to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 than the one you are implying.

    Also, the context is about false gods and idols. The context is not comparing Jehovah to Jesus in the way you think. It is comparing Jehovah/Jesus together against the false gods and idols. Simply put, there is only one God and Lord and all others are false. The scriptures you mentioned in no way contradict other scriptures nor do they prove that Jesus is not God.



  6. Why did Paul consistently refer to the "God and father" of Jesus and never to the God and father of the father, since they are equal (Ephesians 4:5-6, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Colossians 1:3, Galatians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, etc...)? Don't all these scriptures indicate beyond any shred of doubt that the Apostle Paul did not think of Jesus as being the same as or in God the father or being equal to the Father, since each of them (God the father on the one hand and Jesus the Lord on the other) had to send his own greetings, give his peace, etc..? Wouldn't it have have been sufficient to just mention greetings from God, since the two constitute the same God?

    ANSWER:
    • Regarding Ephesians 4:5-6 :
      We can all agree that both Jesus is our Lord and Jehovah is our Lord. Yet, in the verse you just referenced, it says there is ONE Lord. Now, if the term 'Lord' is not limited to only the Father then why are you limiting the term 'God' to only the Father? It is unfair and biased logic. If Jesus and Jehovah (the Father) can both be our 'Lord' then it is fair to say that Jesus and the Father can both be 'God'. This verse in no way proves your point.


    • Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3 :
      The verse says that the head of every woman is man. Does this mean that women are inferior to men? No. The woman has a submissive role and is inferior in position, but not in nature. The same applies with the rest of the verse. Jesus submitted himself to the Father, but this doesn't mean he is inferior in nature.


    • Regarding Colossians 1:3, Galations 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2 :
      Nobody is debating whether or not God the Father and Jesus the Son are two separate and distinct persons. Nobody is debating whether or not God the Father is the father of Jesus too. These verses are simply saying a greeting from two distinct persons who share the nature of God.


    • Regarding "Why did Paul consistently refer to the "God and father" of Jesus and never to the God and father of the father" :
      Because it was accurate and truthful for him to do so. God the Father is the father of Jesus. If he would have said 'God and father of the father' this would imply that Jesus is the father or that there are two God the Fathers. This question can only be asked by someone who doesn't fully understand the concept of the trinity. Jesus is not God the Father. He is God the Son. There is only one God the Father and one God the Son.


    • Regarding "Don't all these scriptures indicate beyond any shred of doubt that the Apostle Paul did not think of Jesus as being the same as or in God the father or being equal to the father" :
      Most of the scriptures you referenced do not even come close to proving anything other than the fact that God the Father and Jesus the Son are two distinct persons.


    • Regarding "Wouldn't it have have been sufficient to just mention greetings from God, since the two constitute the same God?" :
      Perhaps, but maybe it was better that more detail be included.


  7. It seems the holy spirit does not like to send peace, greetings, love..... to the churches; why is that? Can you explain why this so-called God is such an unsociable God (when the other two Gods are very sociable in the bible)?

    ANSWER:
    Sure, no problem. The answers are clearly in the Bible. John 16:5-7 says that after Jesus was going to leave he was going to send the Holy Spirit. This later happened in Acts 2. So Jesus and the Father are in heaven and the Holy Spirit is with us. Therefore, Jesus and the Father send greetings and the Holy Spirit does not. The Holy Spirit is with us and there is no need for his greetings. Actually, not only is the Holy Spirit with us, but we are to be filled with the Spirit of God. If this is not being social, what is?!? You are also ignoring verses in the Bible that say the Holy Spirit talked and that he is our counselor/advocate. He is also a gift-giver. Again, if that is not being social, what is?!?


  8. If Jesus is equal to God, or the same as God the almighty, why would the bible consistently use the "father-son" relationship to depict the relationship between God, the almighty and Jesus Christ? What else would God, the almighty have wanted us (normal humans other than philosophers: Colossisans 2:8) to think, other than:

    a. The father always exists before the son. No son is born at the same time as his father,

    b. The father is older, more mature, more experienced, ......than his son,

    c. The father causes the birth of the son, or the father gives life to the son,

    d. There is always a start date to fatherhood. No one becomes a father at his birth or as soon as he is born,

    e. The son would not exist had it not been for the father's decisions and actions(even in the case of adoption),

    f. The son is as human as the father (both of them can be refereed to as "man"), but as long as both the father and the son are alive, the father is greater than the son (in the sense explained above) and in all cultures without exception, a good son must be respectful, obedient and subordinate to his father (John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15: 27-28, 1 Corinthians 11:3; John 13:16.......).

    Why would God have wanted us to think any differently when the bible consistently refers to Jesus as his son? If they are equal, wouldn't the relationship between "twin" brothers or sisters have been more appropriate to depict the relationship between God, the almighty and Jesus?

    ANSWER:
    The Bible consistently refers to Jesus not only as the Son but also as Lord, God, and other related titles. You can look at the very context surrounding Col. 2:8 that you just quoted. In verse 6 he is called 'the Lord' and then in verse 9 he is described as God, which your Bible has watered down. Let's just pretend though that he is only referred to as the Son. To answer your question, he showed great humility and came to die for us. He was born as a human by the Holy Spirit. So he is the Son. Therefore, since he was born by the Holy Spirit and since he showed obedience and humility, it is more appropriate for him to be called the Son and not twin.

    About points 'a' through 'f', if you think about these from a purely human perspective they are fair assumptions. However, the Bible clearly says that Jesus is eternal (eg. Isaiah 9:6) and there are tons of other verses to show that we cannot make human assumptions on this topic. So your whole argument goes out the window with that verse alone. If Jesus is eternal then he could not have ever been created and God the Father would have had no start date for fatherhood in the sense you believe. For your beliefs to be true, either the Bible is incorrect when it calls Jesus 'Eternal' or the dictionaries are incorrect when they define the meaning of the word 'Eternal'. Points 'c' and 'd' are especially invalid because they could simply be answered with the human birth of Jesus. The Father did cause Jesus' human birth and this could be considered the start of his fatherhood in a sense.

    Since you have the mindset of thinking about this from a human perspective, we can do that too. If a human father has a son, would the son be human or not? Of course human. An offspring of a human is fully human just as the parent. So when an eternal God has a son, the son must also be fully eternal and God. You cannot pick and choose which human logic you want to use.


  9. In John 8:28 Jesus says in part: "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." If Jesus is God, the almighty, how could he be taught anything? He is supposed to be all-knowing, right? When did father teach him? Was it not when he was in heaven prior to his coming here on earth (Proverbs 8:22-30)? Was Jesus teacher not greater than him?

    ANSWER:
    Jesus has 2 natures - God and Man. He is the Word that became flesh and dwelt with us (John 1:14). In him dwells all the fullness of the divine quality (Col. 2:9), as your Bible poorly renders it. Even though Jesus was in the form of God, he humbled himself and came as a servant to die as a human (Phil. 2:5-8). He was made a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9). He was under the law (Gal. 4:4). He also grew in wisdom and stature as a human does (Luke 2:52). Therefore, he is both God and Man. He is both the Son of God (God) and Son of Man (Man). His words here do not mean he is not God Almighty. Rather, they agree with the rest of scripture that he was a humble man here on Earth acting in submission and obedience to God the Father.

    No, the Father did not teach Jesus in heaven prior to coming to Earth. John 8:28 does not say that. Look at verse 29 where it immediately says that God the Father was with Jesus at that very point in time. Verse 29 also blows a hole in your teaching that God is not omnipresent and that he only dwells in one place. John 8:16,29 plainly contradicts your teaching. The Jews were claiming that Jesus' testimony about himself was invalid. Jesus replied saying that it was valid because there was a witness of two. How? Because God the Father was with him! Meaning, at that very point in time and at that very place, God that Father was with him.

    No, Jesus' teacher is not greater than Jesus in the sense you believe. No more than an elder conducting a book study is greater than those being taught. The elder is greater in position or authority in that role, but not in nature. The elder and the ones being taught are the same in nature. They are all humans. Likewise, Jesus being taught does not mean he is not God. Jesus is God who humbly came to Earth to die as a servant.

    You should really avoid mentioning John 8 as a Jehovah's Witness because it really is devastating to your religion. In addition to the above, Jesus said in John 8:16,26 that he judges. However, James 4:12 says there is only one Judge. So either the Bible contradicts itself, or your religion is wrong and Jesus is God! Furthermore, John 8:54 says that God the Father glorifies Jesus. However, Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 48:11 say that God shares his glory with no one. So either the Bible contradicts itself again, or your religion is wrong and Jesus is God! Futhermore, in John 8:58 Jesus calls himself the 'I AM' from Exodus 3:14-15. So you really should avoid using John 8 at all as a Jehovah's Witness.

    Regarding Proverbs 8:22-30, please see point #13 in the 'Invalid JW Arguments' section.



  10. Who did Jesus speak to in prayer? Himself, since he is God, the almighty as well? What would be the meaning of such prayers if he was misleadingly passing his prayers as if praying to someone else, when in fact he is praying to himself?

    ANSWER:
    Jesus prayed to God the Father. No, obviously it was not himself. There are 3 distinct persons that make up the one being of God - Father, Son, and, Spirit. Please read #14 of 'Invalid JW Arguments' for more information.



  11. If Jesus is God the almighty or literally within God the almighty (as understood by Trinitarians), how did he "appear for us in God's presence" if he is within God? And what would be the significance of a person appearing before himself for others? See Heb. 9:24.

    ANSWER:
    To be clear, Jesus appeared for us before God (the Father). Your question is not accurate. God the Son did not appear before God the Son. So saying he appeared before 'himself', is not accurate. God the Son appeared before God the Father. They are distinct persons who share the one being of God. Go read the #14 of the 'Invalid JW Arguments' section and also the 'Concept of Trinity in NWT' section.

    To answer your question about what would be the significance of Jesus appearing before God for others, just read Hebrews chapter 9 which you just quoted from. The answer is clearly there. Without him dying and doing this for us, we would have no hope.



  12. Why did Jesus say "the Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28)? Is this "I am" also not to be understood as the one used in John 8:58 that is often twisted by Trinitarians to refer to Jesus who in their view is also Jehovah?

    ANSWER:
    How is John 8:58 twisted by Trinitarians? This is widely considered by many, both Christians and non-Christians alike, as a direct reference to Exodus 3:14-15. Even in the Christian world, it is considered as such across many denominations. The cults are mainly the ones that have a problem with this passage.

    To answer your question, Jesus was on Earth when he said those words! When he was on Earth and made that statement, he was simply acknowledging he was a man on Earth. He was in the form of God and humbly emptied himself and came into a body to die for us (Phil. 2:6-8). He was also a man born under the law (Galations 4:4). So at the time he spoke those words, the Father was greater than him for those reasons. That is all that was meant by John 14:28. The 'greater' mentioned here is only in regards to position while Jesus was on Earth. You can even read the surrounding context to realize this point since Jesus is talking about going back to heaven. Anyways, Jesus is no longer a humble man here on Earth getting ready to die, so this scripture is not valid proof that Jesus is not God.



  13. In Phil. 2:5,6; he himself (Christ Jesus), though existing in God's form did not consider that he should be equal to God: my question is: Is it our place then (we mere humans), to make him equal to God? Should we not accept his own decision to be lower than God, the almighty?

    ANSWER:
    Phil. 2:5-6 is about him coming as a man to die for us! The passage is not about right now. You talk as if it were a permanent decision made by Jesus. What parts of Phil. 2:9-11 do you not understand? It could not be any clearer.

    We mere humans are not making Jesus equal to God since Jesus is ALREADY equal to God. Just read the book of Revelation and you will see that Jesus is called God the Almighty, first and the last, Alpha and Omega, and he was worshipped as God. Furthermore, this question coming from you is invalid since it can be used back towards you in reverse. Is it our place then (we mere humans), to make him equal to Michael the Archangel???



  14. Who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism saying "this is my son" (Matt. 3:17)? Why not say: this is me; God, the almighty? It would have been after all, more accurate if Jesus was God, the almighty?

    ANSWER:
    God the Father spoke. We all know this already. No, it would not have been more accurate for him to say this. God the Father is not God the Son. Go read the #14 of the 'Invalid JW Arguments' section and also the 'Concept of Trinity in NWT' section.

    While we are at it, this is a good passage to talk about. The 3 persons of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Spirit - are mentioned here. This is a pattern seen throughout the Bible. Also, the Spirit of God, which JW's believe is not alive, is mentioned here as being in the form of a dove, which is alive. According to your belief, Jehovah is a spirit who is alive. The angels who are ministering spirits are alive. Even the demon spirits who went into the pigs and possessed people are alive as well. However, the Spirit of God which does things in the Bible like speak, plead, teach, and fly like a dove, is not alive... That makes absolutely no sense and it is an outright degradation of the Holy Spirit.



  15. How could he (Jesus, who is God Almighty in your view) be exalted (Php. 2:9, 10)? If he at some point had to be exalted, doesn't this mean that there was a time period during which he held a lower position? Why does God the almighty need anyone else to exalt him anyway? Is God the almighty not able to exalt himself? At Psalms 83:18, God almighty is described as "the Most High over all the earth". If Jesus is "the Most High", then was he being exalted above the highest position available? Furthermore is the one exalting equal to the one being exalted?

    ANSWER:
    Philippians chapter 2 is about Jesus being in the form of God and then him leaving that position to become a man and humbly die for us. So the answer as to how Jesus could be exalted is simple. After he died as a man, he was exalted. So yes, there was a time he held a lower position. The key word here is position, which does not mean he ceased being God. He had a lower position when he was here on Earth living as one of us. Afterwards, God exalted him. Philippians 2:9-11 describes the exaltation very plainly. Your Bible has this passage watered down, but if you read a normal Bible produced by real and documented translators, it becomes quite clear. What position was Jesus exalted to? To the HIGHEST position. Whose name is above EVERY name? Jesus' name is. How many knees with bow to Jesus? EVERY knee everywhere will bow. And how many tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord? EVERY tongue will confess Jesus. Let's be honest. Does this sound like God to you or a created spirit creature named Michael the Archangel?



  16. How can he be the "mediator between God and man" and at the same time God the almighty? 1 Timothy 2:5 states "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus". Is Jesus the mediator between himself and us, if he is God almighty?

    ANSWER:
    Jesus is not mediator between himself and us. He is mediator between God (Father) and us. Go read the #14 of the 'Invalid JW Arguments' section and also the 'Concept of Trinity in NWT' section to understand the concept of the Trinity. So 1 Timothy 2:5 is not proof whatsoever that Jesus is himself not God. God is plural and the 'God' mentioned in this verse is referring to the Father.

    It is a little odd you mention this verse since it calls Jesus a man. This contradicts your teaching that Jesus was recreated as a spirit creature and is Michael the Archangel. We believe Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. He is both the 'Son of God' and the 'Son of Man'. When he came to Earth, he never ceased to be God. And when he was resurrected, he never ceased to be Man. He is the God-Man. He became man in order to save us (Hebrews 2:17, Galations 4:4-5). Our beliefs completely agree with the 1 Timothy 2:5, which you just quoted.

    It must also be stated that your organization contradicts the very same verse you just quoted. The verse says he is the mediator between God and mankind. The WTBS teaches that Jesus is not the mediator between God and all mankind, but only the 144,000. Many Jehovah's Witnesses do not know this. Do the research and you will find that they have taught this multiple times. It can be found in your own publications! The common JW is only a benefactor of the new covenant and Jesus is not their mediator. As a result, the common JW who believes the WTBS has no salvation. Who will you believe? The Bible you just quoted from or the Watchtower corporation?



  17. Why did Paul say that the "the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3)? Would the scripture not be misleading us by clearly showing us that God, the almighty has authority over Jesus Christ, when in fact this is not true? In that context, the man is greater than his wife and has authority over her, Christ is greater than the man and has authority over him; shouldn't this also mean therefore, that God the almighty, is greater than Jesus (John 14:28) and has authority over him? If not, why did the apostle Paul give us this idea, bearing in mind that Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus who later become Apostle Paul only after he (Jesus) had returned to heaven? Why would Jesus reveal himself to Paul as still being subjected to God, the almighty, if he was only humbling himself here on earth?

    ANSWER:
    He said this because this is the order God determined for everything. You pointed out the context of 1 Cor. 11:3, which is great because this is where you will find the answer. It says the head of a woman is the man. Does this mean the man is a superior being? No! Actually, in some ways a woman is superior to a man. Likewise, does this mean a woman is not a human being? No! A woman is just as much human as a man is. So this passage is all about position, but not about nature. Just like the man is the head of a woman, Christ is head of the man. And just like Christ is head of the man, God (Father) is head of Christ. This is simply the order God has determined, but in no way means Jesus is not God Almighty though. The same holds true for John 14:28, which has already been answered on this website.

    God does not consider greatness the same way people do. Using JW logic, Christ's disciples would have been greater than him because he lowered himself to wash their feet (John 13). They were not greater though. Also, Jesus' disciples disputed with each other who was the greatest among them (Luke 9:46-48, Luke 22:24-27). They had the JW mentality. Jesus told them plainly that the greatest was the one who served and who was like the lowest. So the JW argument about greatness goes out the window because it is not biblical. So do not confuse position with nature.


  18. If Jesus is God, the almighty, why would Jesus be expected to "hand over the Kingdom to his God" and "subject himself to God" in the future (1 Cor. 15:24-28)? Why does verse 27 in particular, emphasize the fact that God the almighty is not subjected to Christ? If the two were really equal, should they not be subjected to each other, interchangeably? Trinitarians often say that he was only humbling himself when he was here on earth, but what about this scripture (1 Cor. 15:24-28), the context of which is clearly set in the future (when Jesus would no longer be human) after securing his kingdom on earth and in heaven? And what about Revelation 3:12 which also clearly speaks of Jesus after returning to heaven (and still referring to Jehovah as his God)?

    ANSWER:
    One thing about what you said should be set straight right away. You said, "when Jesus would no longer be human". We do not believe this. Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. He is both the 'Son of God' and the 'Son of Man'. When he came to Earth, he never ceased to be God. And when he was resurrected, he never ceased to be Man. He is the God-Man. It is understood that you believe he was recreated as a spirit creature and is no longer a man, but we do not believe this. Even 1 Cor. chapter 15 which you just quoted from proves your belief completely wrong. Look at 1 Cor. 15:14. You do not believe Christ has been raised as other humans (eg. Lazarus). Therefore, your preaching and faith are in vain! Verse 15 says you are false Jehovah's Witnesses because of this. There is a direct connection in 1 Cor. 15 between men being raised and Jesus being raised. This chapter directly contradicts your beliefs that Jesus was recreated as a spirit creature. He was raised, not recreated. And he was raised a man, not as a spirit creature.

    About 1 Cor. 15:24-28, God (Father) is not subject to Christ simply because this is not the order God has determined. It's like asking why the husband is not subject to the wife. God knows all and therefore knows the best order for everything. Do not confuse subjection with inferiority. A woman is subject to a man according to scripture, but this does not mean that the woman is an inferior being. Nor does it mean a woman is not a human being. A woman and a man are both human beings.

    Regarding verse 27 in particular, let's pretend that subjection is indeed the same as inferiority and let's ignore the example of the husband and wife mentioned above. Look at verse 28 and read it carefully. The meaning seems diluted in the NWT, but the point is still there. There is an implication that until all things have been subjected to Jesus that he is not subjected to God the Father yet. Only after all things have been subjected to Jesus does it say that Jesus himself will subject himself to God (Father). If the implied meaning is true, your whole argument is invalid from this alone.

    Regarding Revelation 3:12, Trinitarians believe that there are three separate persons that share the one being of God : the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are distinct, coeternal, and coequal. We already mentioned that there is an order of subjection determined by God. So Revelation 3:12 poses no problem. Jesus can call the Father 'God' because the Father is his God. Just like in Genesis 19:24 (in older black NWT before they changed it), Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire from Jehovah. There were 2 Jehovah's at 2 different places at the same time (Jesus on Earth and the Father in heaven). Another example is in Isaiah 44:6 where there are 2 Jehovah's. And so on. God is plural, but yet he is one God. So Jesus calling the Father 'God', is no problem at all and it is in complete agreement with the rest of scripture.