Re: The Shroud of Turin: Evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake

AN

Thanks for your message. I will respond to your question publicly

[Above: Shroud of Turin: World-Mysteries.com. The direction and patterns of the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin show that the man whose image is imprinted on it, died on a cross with both his arms outstretched to the side and nailed:

"In addition, by measuring the angle of dried blood on the wrist, one can reconstruct the angle at which this person hung from the cross. He mainly hung from a position 65 degrees from the horizontal. But there is another angle of dried blood at 55 degrees. This shows that this person tried to lift himself up by 10 degrees. Why? Medical studies show that if a person just hangs from a position of 65 degrees in would start to suffocate very quickly. Only if he could lift himself up by about 10 degrees would he be able to breathe. Thus he would have to raise himself up by this 10 degrees by pushing down on his feet which would have to have been fixed to the cross. He would then become exhausted and fall down again to the 65 degree position. Thus, he would continue to shift from these two agonizing positions throughout crucifixion. That is why the executioners of crucifixion would break the legs of their victims to speed up death. If they could not lift themselves up to breathe, they would suffocate very quickly." (Shroud of Turin: World-Mysteries.com).

See also `tagline' quotes at the end of this post. If this is Jesus, and the evidence is overwhelming that it is (see for example my also as yet unfinished series, Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1, on my TheShroudofTurin blog), then this is further archeological and scientific evidence (if not absolute proof ) that Jesus was crucified on a two-beamed cross and not a single stake as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society claims].

via my blog, JesusisJehovah!, minus your personal identifying information, i.e. substituting "AN" for your name.

I am also copying this reply to my TheShroudofTurin blog,

[Right (click to enlarge): Jesus `impaled' on a single stake with both arms together over his head affixed by one nail: "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 2005, p.52. This is how the Watchtower Society has consistently depicted Jesus' execution since 1950 at least.]

because it may be of interest to my readers there. Although they may be unaware of (and astonished at) the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's (Jehovah's Witnesses') claim that Jesus was not crucified with both arms outspread and therefore affixed with two nails through both wrists on a cross, but was instead affixed by only one nail through both hands above His head on a single upright stake.

----- Original Message - ----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:09 AM
Subject: Stake/Cross comments continued?..

>Hello, Stephen!
>
>My name's AN and I'm from Russia (so excuse me, please, for my poor English). I've read with a great interest your articles (#1-#3) about stake/cross controversy in your blog.
>
>I've been waiting for continuation since autumn and so have a question: do you plan to publish new posts (as you stated: "#4 Patristic, #5 Archaeological, #6 Pagan, #7 Biblical and #8 Conclusion") on this theme?

Thanks for your reminder. Quite frankly I have been so busy, what with, researching and posting my Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament series, going back to university to become a science teacher and debating with JWs on Shazoolo's and Newagegamer's YouTube boards, that this had been moved to the backburner.

However, I do intend to continue with that series. I have now moved my draft next post in the series, "Was Jesus executed on a cross or a stake? #3D: Historical" out of my Drafts 2008 folder into my current Drafts folder and will try to finish it this Sunday, if not this week.

>Thanx for your work!
>Waiting for your reply,
>AN

Thanks again for your reminder and for your patience.

PS: Note in the `tagline' quotes below, that if the hands of the man on the Shroud had been affixed by one nail to a single upright pole, then the blood flows from his wrists would have been vertical, i.e. straight down the arms, not 65-55% to the vertical. So this is yet another nail (pun intended) in the Watchtower Society's coffin!

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

---

"We are now drawn to the wounds of the crucifixion itself. First we must establish that we can be quite confident we are dealing with a crucifixion victim. The principal evidence for this lies in the flows of blood from the wound in the left wrist. One of the most important aspects is the angle of the two streams of blood closest to the hand, flowing toward the inner border of the forearm.

[Left (click to enlarge): The 55-65% angle of the Shroud victim's arms on the cross, deduced from the paths of the bloodflows on them (Wilson, 1978, pl.12.]

Other, interrupted streams run along the length of the arm as far as the elbow, dripping toward the edge of the arm at angles similar to the original flows. The first two flows are about ten degrees apart, the somewhat thinner one at an angle of about fifty-five degrees from the axis of the arm and the broader one closer to the hand at about sixty-five degrees. This enables us to do two things: (1) to compute that at the time the blood flowed, the arms must have been raised at positions varying between fifty-five and sixty-five degrees from the vertical, i.e., clearly a crucifixion position; (2) to compute that because of the ten-degree difference the crucified man must have assumed two slightly different positions on the cross, that at sixty-five degrees representing full suspension of the body, that at fifty-five degrees a slightly more acute angle of the forearm produced by flexing the elbow to raise the body. We are enabled to deduce then that the crucifixion forced on the victim an up-and-down or seesaw motion on the cross-perhaps, according to one school of thought, in order to breathe, the arms in that position taking a tension equal to nearly twice the weight of the body, inducing near-suffocation if there was no crutch support; perhaps, according to another school of thought, by the victim attempting to relieve himself of one unbearable agony, the pain in his wrists, by raising himself, at the price of yet more pain, on the living wounds in his feet." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.25-26).

"For the first clear evidence that the Shroud shows a victim of crucifixion, we now turn to the next group of injuries, which take the form of what appear to be blood flows in the region of the hands and lower arms. On the man of the Shroud's left wrist can be seen two separately angled blood flows, one broad, the other thin and long; then, after a gap of a few centimeters, at least six blood rivulets appear to flow on toward the elbow joint. Although the right wrist is obscured by the left, the presence of similar bloodstains on this arm suggests a similarly originating injury. As before, it is the underlying logic that is so compelling. Each rivulet of blood ends its course pointing in a specific direction, from which it can be calculated that when the majority of the rivulets flowed, the man of the Shroud's arms must have been at an angle of 65 degrees from the vertical-i.e., clearly a crucifixion position. Only one rivulet is different, the longer and thinner of those at the wrist, which indicates not 65 but 55 degrees from the vertical. To pathologists, this single flow almost certainly indicates the attitude the arms assumed at death, at which time the head would have been slumped and one elbow flexed at a more acute angle." (Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.22).

"Which leads us to the third category of injuries visible on the Shroud, the bloodflows as from piercings to the hands and feet. First let us take the trickles that can be seen on each forearm ... As various medical and other researchers have demonstrated, if these are, projected and painted onto a living model's arms and his arms are then moved to the position that their gravitational flow would seem to indicate, it can immediately be seen that at the time the blood flowed each arm must have been stretched out sideways at an approximate angle of sixty-five degrees, i.e. a crucifixion position ...

[Right (click to enlarge): Transpositions of the Shroud's forearms bloodflows onto a living man, showing the man on the Shroud's living (top) and dead (bottom) positions on the cross. (Wilson, 1998, pl. 18a-b).]

We cannot see the source of the trickle down the right forearm because its wrist and upper hand are covered by the fingers of the left hand. But this is more than compensated for by the fact that a `/\'shaped bloodstain is clearly visible on the left wrist, the apex of this, at the centre of the bending fold, being obviously the site of the puncture wound from which the blood flowed. The `/\' shape to the bloodstain also theoretically seems to indicate the two different positions that the man of the Shroud must have adopted while suspended, either denoting his agonising shifting from one position to another or, as some have suggested, the position his arms took at death." (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.34-35).

"Blood flowed along the arms while they were extended on the cross. At several points on the left forearm the blood was deflected and flowed vertically down the side. At the back of the left hand there are two trickles of blood which also flowed vertically during the crucifixion. These streams are still in their original position in relation to the arm and the hand. Thus they enable us to calculate the angle at which the arms were extended on the cross-about 65 degrees from the vertical. In the imprints of the Shroud we have an exact portrayal of the technique of crucifixion, and of one crucifixion in particular which supplies for the reticence of the Evangelists." (Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.45).

Jesus is Jehovah in 1 Thessalonians

Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament: Index

1. INTRODUCTION
This is my "Jesus is Jehovah in 1 Thessalonians," which is the third

[Above: Ruins of Ancient Agora, Thessaloniki, Greece: Photius Coutsoukis. Paul may have preached from this very spot. On Paul's brief stay in Thessalonica in c. AD 50, see Acts 17:1-15 NIV.]

part of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament." As previously explained, unless otherwise indicated, the Bible verse links are to the American Standard Version, since it translated the Hebrew YHWH as "Jehovah." See `tagline' quotes below.

2. JESUS HAS NAMES & TITLES OF JEHOVAH
Son of God. Jesus is "his (God's) Son" (1Th 1:10), i.e. God's one and only Son.

Lord. Jesus is "the/our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Th 1:1,3; 5:9,23,28); "the/our Lord Jesus" (1Th 2:15, 19; 3:11,13; 4:1-2); or simply "the Lord" (1Th 1:6,8; 3:8,12; 4:6,15-17; 5:2,12,27). The words of and about Jesus was "the word of the Lord" (1Th 1:8; 4:15; 2Th 3:1; Lk 22:61; Ac 8:25; 13:49; 15:35; 15:36; 16:32; 19:10; 19:20). This logos tou kuriou is identical to the rendering in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) of "the word of Jehovah" found over 230 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.

"[1Th 1:1] ... in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ .. It is striking (a) that he speaks of the Father and the Lord in one breath (no-one else could be linked with the Father in this way), (b) that he joins the two under one preposition in ... Lord and Christ. Lord was used in LXX as the translation of the divine name and it was commonly used of deity ... From very early times Jesus was seen to have the highest place." (Morris, 1984, "Thessalonians," p.41).

"[1Th 1:8] The Lord's message (RSV 'the word of the Lord') is an expression very common in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament .. It emphasizes the conviction of the early Christians that the message they proclaimed was ... truly of divine origin. " (Morris, 1984, Ibid., p.46).

"[1Th 1:1] "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The combination of both terms (a. God the Father, b. the Lord Jesus Christ) after one preposition .. in ... would seem to indicate that the two are entirely co-ordinate, that is, that the reference is to the first and to the second person of the Holy Trinity ... the Lord Jesus Christ. In the LXX the name Lord (kurios) translates Jehovah, the God of Israel ... Now the Jews were strict monotheists. Yet Paul, though himself a Jew, again and again gives to Jesus the title Lord. This shows that, in the thinking of the apostle, Jesus is just as fully divine as is God the Father ..." (Hendriksen, 1972, "1 & 2 Thessalonians," pp.40-41).

3. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES ABOUT JEHOVAH ARE APPLIED TO JESUS
Zep 1:14-19 = 1Th 5:2-9 Day of the Lord. The second "coming of the/our Lord" Jesus (1Th 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2Th 2:1; 2:8; Jas 5:7-8) is called "the day of the Lord [Gk. hemeran kuriou]" (1Th 5:2; 2Th 2:2; Ac 2:20; 2Pet 3:10). Which is "the day of the/our Lord Jesus" (1Cor 5:5; 2Cor 1:14); "the day of Jesus Christ" (1Cor 1:8; Php 1:6); "the day of Christ" (Php 1:10; 2:16). But in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) the same words emera kuriou translate the "day of Jehovah" (Isa 2:12; 13:6,9; Jer 46:10; Eze 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Am 5:18,20; Ob 1:15; Zep 1:7,14; Zec 14:1; Mal 4:5). Therefore Jesus is Jehovah!

"Paul frequently refers to Jesus as `Lord' in 1 Corinthians in such a way as to identify him as, or equate him with, the Lord Jehovah of the Old Testament. ... Paul says that Christians hope to be found `blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ ' (1:8; see also 5:5), whereas the Old Testament spoke of that judgment day as `the day of YHWH ' (e.g., Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31). ... Paul's language clearly refers to Jesus as if he were YHWH" (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place," pp.163, 339).

"The Old Testament frequently speaks of the eschatological Day of judgment .. as `the day of the LORD,' that is, the day of YHWH (Isa. 13:6, 9; Ezek. 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14). .. the apostle Paul frequently referred to the eschatological Day of judgment as the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:18; cf. 2 Peter 3:8-10,12). ... the Lord Jesus' exercising the same function of judgment strongly identifies the Lord Jesus with the Lord YHWH." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, Ibid., p.230).

4. JESUS HAS ATTRIBUTES OF JEHOVAH
Eternal. Christians shall "ever be with the Lord" (1Th 4:17).

5. JESUS DOES WORKS OF JEHOVAH
Judgment. Jesus will avenge sexual sins (1Th 4:3-6). But "the avenger is the Lord" (Gk. ekdikos kurios) is a quote from Ps 94:1 (LXX) where it is Jehovah who is the Lord who avenges (Gk. ekdikeseon kurios).

6. JESUS RECEIVES HONOR & WORSHIP DUE TO JEHOVAH
Hope. New Testament believers are to "hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Th 1:3). But Old Testament believers were to "hope in Jehovah" (Ps 31:24; 130:7; 131:3).

Prayer. Prayer is directed to "our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus" as one (1Th 3:11-13):

"[1Th 3:11] ... Notice that our God and Father is linked in the closest fashion in the address of this prayer with our Lord Jesus ... the verb (kateuthynai) is in the singular. There could scarcely be a more impressive way of indicating the lordship of Christ, and his oneness with the Father (... the singular 'implies that God and Jesus count as one in this connection'). From a very early time ... Christians accepted the deity of our Lord without question. ... Prayer is offered to God alone; only one who was divine could be bracketed in this way with the Father ... By the Lord he almost certainly means Jesus, but ... he is making no great distinction between the Father and the Son. For him both were God and the two were in some sense one." (Morris, 1984, Ibid., pp.76-77).

7. OBJECTIONS TO JESUS BEING JEHOVAH
An indirect objection to Jesus being Jehovah in 1 Thessalonians is the Watchtower's citing of 1Th 4:16:

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;"

in support of its claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel:

"Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel? ... At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as `the archangel's call,' and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael." (WB&TS, 1989, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," p.218).

"Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, l Thessalonians 4:16 states: `The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice.' Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.." (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," pp.218-219).

In the original Greek of 1Th 4:16 there is no definite article "the" before "archangel." So in this verse, ironically, the Watchtower's New World Translation is more accurate than some mainstream Christian versions, by correctly translating "an archangel's voice":

1Th 4:16 NWT "because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

That is, the verse does not state which of the seven archangels the Jews believed existed:

"ARCHANGEL ... a hierarchy was conceived, headed by various numbers of archangels ... The seven archangels named by Jewish tradition (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, and Remiel) may be the angels indicated at Rev. 8:1. " (Myers, 1987, "Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," p.81).

"Jewish tradition has always held that there are seven archangels" (Rhodes, 1993, Ibid., p.182).

is the unnamed "an archangel" that Paul is referring to. And Daniel 10:13 reveals that Michael is only "one of the chief princes", indicating there was more than one angel of his rank:

".. Michael is referred to as `one of the foremost princes.' (Daniel 10:13 NWT) The Bible leaves open the possibility that there are other unnamed archangels besides Michael." (Reed, 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," p.158).

"Point the Witness to Daniel 10:13, where Michael is specifically called `one of the chief princes.' [which] ... indicates that he is one among a group of chief princes." (Rhodes, 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," p.182).

That Michael is the only named archangel in the Bible, does not thereby prove he is the only archangel::

"... it should be noted that the term `archangel' is found only twice in the Bible-at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9-providing insufficient information to say for certain that there are no other archangels besides Michael. " (Reed, 1996, Ibid., pp.157-159).

And that Jesus descends with an archangel's voice does not thereby prove Jesus is an archangel:

"... it is faulty logic to conclude that descending `with an archangel's voice' means that Jesus is an archangel. If descending with an archangel's voice makes Christ an archangel, then descending `with God's trumpet' makes Him God. ." (Reed, 1996, Ibid., pp.157-159).

If Jesus was Michael the archangel, such an important teaching of who Jesus is, would be taught many times by Jesus Himself in the gospels and by the Apostle Paul in his major doctrinal letters. But in fact "Michael the archangel" is not mentioned at all in the gospels, nor in Paul's letters, and the only mention of "Michael the archangel" in the entire Bible is in the comparatively minor letter of Jude (Jude 9). So Jesus is not Michael the archangel, and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a false teacher (2Pet 2:1)! See also my "Is Jesus Christ Michael the archangel?".

8. CONCLUSION
Because in 1 Thessalonians: 1) Jesus is called "Lord" (Gk. kurios) in the same sense that Jehovah was called "Lord" in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX); 2) the "Day of the Lord Jesus" is the same as the Old Testament "day of Jehovah"; and 3) there are no valid objections to Jesus being Jehovah in 1 Thessalonians (including the Watchtower's claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel); therefore, Jesus is Jehovah in 1 Thessalonians!

PS. The previous (second) post in this series was "Jesus is Jehovah in Galatians" and the next (fourth) post in it is "Jesus is Jehovah in 1 Corinthians."

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

---

"Paul frequently refers to Jesus as `Lord' in 1 Corinthians in such a way as to identify him as, or equate him with, the Lord Jehovah of the Old Testament. Three instances appear in the opening ten verses alone. Christians, according to Paul, are `all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1:2). The Old Testament, of course, taught that one should call on the name of the Lord YHWH (e.g., Joel 2:32, which, as we have seen, Paul also applied to Jesus in Romans 10:13). A few verses later, Paul says that Christians hope to be found `blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ ' (1:8; see also 5:5), whereas the Old Testament spoke of that judgment day as `the day of YHWH ' (e.g., Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31). The allusion to `the day of the Lord' (cf. Joel 2:31) in the same context as `calling on the name of the Lord' (cf. Joel 2:32) makes it all the more likely that Paul's language alludes directly to Joel. He refers to this future day of the Lord Jesus in several other epistles (2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:18). Paul then exhorts his readers `by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:10), again placing the focus on the name of the Lord Jesus that Judaism placed on the name of the Lord YHWH ... Paul's language clearly refers to Jesus as if he were YHWH" (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.163, 339 n.25).

"The Old Testament frequently speaks of the eschatological Day of judgment (as well as certain historical judgments on the nations that were precursors to that day) as `the day of the LORD,' that is, the day of YHWH (Isa. 13:6, 9; Ezek. 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14). As we pointed out in chapter 13, the apostle Paul frequently referred to the eschatological Day of judgment as the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:18; cf. 2 Peter 3:8-10,12). The use of such a familiar Old Testament idiom in reference to the Lord Jesus' exercising the same function of judgment strongly identifies the Lord Jesus with the Lord YHWH." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.230).

"[1Th 1:1] "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The combination of both terms (a. God the Father, b. the Lord Jesus Christ) after one preposition (in; that is grounded in) would seem to indicate that the two are entirely co-ordinate, that is, that the reference is to the first and to the second person of the Holy Trinity. Note also the trinitarian character of verses 3-5. Hence, the third person (Holy Spirit), mentioned in verse 5, is implied already in verse 1. Paul often mentions the three together in series of closely connected passages (II Thess. 2:13, 14; I Cor. 12:4-6; II Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 3:2-5; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20). In referring to the second person the full name is used here: the Lord Jesus Christ. In the LXX the name Lord (kurios) translates Jehovah, the God of Israel. It is more often the rendering of Jehovah than of anything else. (At times it is the equivalent of Adon, Adonai, Baal, etc.) Now the Jews were strict monotheists. Yet Paul, though himself a Jew, again and again gives to Jesus the title Lord. This shows that, in the thinking of the apostle, Jesus is just as fully divine as is God the Father: one and the same essence is possessed by the Father and by the Son (also by the Spirit, II Cor. 13:14)." (Hendriksen, W., 1972, "1 & 2 Thessalonians," New Testament Commentary, [1955], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, British edition, pp.40-41).

"[1Th 1:1] Also peculiar to these Epistles is the phrase in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Paul usually says 'in Christ'). It is striking (a) that he speaks of the Father and the Lord in one breath (no-one else could be linked with the Father in this way), (b) that he joins the two under one preposition in, and (c) that he expresses the closeness of the tie linking the Thessalonians with their God in terms of Christ as well as the Father. 'The association could hardly be closer' (Ward). This high view of Jesus is continued with the use of Lord and Christ. Lord was used in LXX as the translation of the divine name and it was commonly used of deity in other religions (as well as having less significant uses). It points to a very high place. Christ means 'anointed' and is equivalent to 'Messiah'. And all this in a letter written only about twenty years after the crucifixion. From very early times Jesus was seen to have the highest place." (Morris, L.L., 1984, "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second Edition, p.41).

"[1Th 1:8] The Lord's message (RSV 'the word of the Lord') is an expression very common in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament and found often in Acts [Ac 8:25; 13:44,48-49; 15:35-36; 16:32; 19:10,20], but twice only (here and 2 Thes. 3:1) in Paul (though it is not very different from expressions such as 'the word', 'the word of God', 'the gospel of God' and the like, which are frequent in Paul). It emphasizes the conviction of the early Christians that the message they proclaimed was not the product of human wisdom, but truly of divine origin." (Morris, 1984, p.46).

""[1Th 3:11] From a rhetorical question Paul now turns to an actual prayer ... Notice that our God and Father is linked in the closest fashion in the address of this prayer with our Lord Jesus (again in 2 Thes. 2:16, in the reverse order), and that the verb (kateuthynai) is in the singular. There could scarcely be a more impressive way of indicating the lordship of Christ, and his oneness with the Father (... the singular 'implies that God and Jesus count as one in this connection'). From a very early time (this letter is dated about an 50) Christians accepted the deity of our Lord without question. (Prayer is not the place for the introduction of argument.) Prayer is offered to God alone; only one who was divine could be bracketed in this way with the Father. The prayer is that God and Christ may clear the way, i.e. remove the obstacles that Satan has put in the path. ... By the Lord he almost certainly means Jesus, but as we see from the preceding petition he is making no great distinction between the Father and the Son. For him both were God and the two were in some sense one." (Morris, 1984, pp.76-77).

"ARCHANGEL .. (Gk. archangelos). Chief of the angels (1 Thess. 4:16) and an epithet of Michael (Jude 9). With the heightened interest in angelology during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, a hierarchy was conceived, headed by various numbers of archangels (e.g., Tob. 12:15; I Enoch 87:2-3; 90:31). The seven archangels named by Jewish tradition (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, and Remiel) may be the angels indicated at Rev. 8:1. " (Myers, A.C., ed., 1987, "Archangel," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 2000, p.81).

"Michael the Archangel ... God's inspired Word mentions Michael five times: as `one of the foremost princes' (Daniel 10:13 NWT), as `the prince of [Daniel's] people' (Daniel 10:21 NWT), as `the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel's] people' (Daniel 12:1 NWT), as `the archangel' who `had a difference with the devil and was disputing about Moses' body' but `did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms' (Jude 9 NWT), and as a participant in heavenly conflict when `Michael and his angels battled with the dragon' (Revelation 12:7 NWT). Does one of these verses say that Michael the archangel is Jesus Christ? No. It is necessary to read Scripture plus a Watchtower argument to reach that conclusion. That argument is presented this way in the April 15, 1991, Watchtower magazine, on page 28:

Why do we conclude that Jesus is the archangel Michael? God's Word mentions only one archangel, and it speaks of that angel in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus: `The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet.' (1 Thessalonians 4:16) At Jude 9 we find that this archangel's name is Michael.

The argument consists of three parts that can be analyzed separately: (1) `God's Word mentions only one archangel,' (2) `it speaks of that angel in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus,' and (3) `this archangel's name is Michael.'" In answer to (1) and (3) it should be noted that the term `archangel' is found only twice in the Bible-at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9-providing insufficient information to say for certain that there are no other archangels besides Michael. Although he is the only archangel named in Scripture, Michael is referred to as `"one of the foremost princes.' (Daniel 10:13 NWT) The Bible leaves open the possibility that there are other unnamed archangels besides Michael. As for part (2) of the Watchtower argument, it is faulty logic to conclude that descending `with an archangel's voice' means that Jesus is an archangel. If descending with an archangel's voice makes Christ an archangel, then descending `with God's trumpet' makes Him God. The same logic must be applied to the entire verse, not just part of it." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, pp.157-159).

"1 Thessalonians 4:16-The Voice of an Archangel ... The New World Translation renders 1 Thessalonians 4:16, `The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.' The Watchtower Society argues that the Lord Himself issues forth a commanding call with the voice of the archangel, thereby proving that He is the archangel Michael. In support of this interpretation, Aid to Bible Understanding comments, `Michael is the only one said to be the `archangel,' meaning `chief angel' or `principal angel.' The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief or head of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel.' [WTB&TS, 1971,"Aid to Bible Understanding," p.1152] ... In your answer to the Jehovah's Witness begin by addressing the claim that because `archangel' occurs in the singular, this must mean that `there is but one whom God has designated chief or head of the angelic host.' Point the Witness to Daniel 10:13, where Michael is specifically called `one of the chief princes.' The fact that Michael is `one of' the chief princes indicates that he is one among a group of chief princes. How large that group is, we are not told. But the fact that Michael is one among equals proves that he is not totally unique. ... Jewish tradition has always held that there are seven archangels. [Bromiley, G.W., ed., 1986, "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia," Vol. 3, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, p.347]" (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.181-182).

"Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel? The name of this Michael appears only five times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears the name is referred to as `one of the chief princes,' `the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel's] people,' and as `the archangel.' (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS) Michael means `Who Is Like God?' The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah's sovereignty and destroying God's enemies. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as `the archangel's call,' and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus' commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression `archangel' is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.) Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as `ruler of this world,' Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the `standing up of Michael' to act with authority with `a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.' That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them. So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God." (WB&TS, 1989, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, p.218).

"Archangel. God's Word refers to Michael `the archangel.' (Jude 9) This term means `chief angel.' Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term `archangel' occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural. Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, l Thessalonians 4:16 states: `The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice.' Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael. Army Leader. The Bible states that `Michael and his angels battled with the dragon ... and its angels.' (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions `the Lord Jesus' and `his powerful angels.' (2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3: 22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and `his angels' and Jesus and `his angels.' (Matthew 13:41) Since God's Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven-one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus-it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role." (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, pp.218-219).

Re: Is Jesus Jehovah? Please answer the following #4

grandpa len

Continued from my "Re: Is Jesus Jehovah? Please answer the following #3" with this, the fourth and last part of my four-part

[Above (click to enlarge): Shamash ... the sun god and god of justice in Babylonia ...":

"Together with Nannar-Sin and Ishtar, Shamash completes another triad by the side of Anu, Enlil and Ea. The three powers Sin, Shamash and Ishtar symbolized three great forces of nature: the moon, the sun, and the life-giving force of the earth, respectively. At times instead of Ishtar we find Adad, the storm-god, associated with Sin and Shamash, and it may be that these two sets of triads represent the doctrines of two different schools of theological thought in Babylonia which were subsequently harmonized by the recognition of a group consisting of all four deities. The consort of Shamash was known as Aya. She is, however, rarely mentioned in the inscriptions except in combination with Shamash." ("Shamash," Wikipedia, 20 February 2009).]

response to your series of questions in a comment under my post, "Watchtower Errors by Bible verse: Index." Again, your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: grandpa len
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:29 AM
Subject: [Jesus is Jehovah!] New comment on Watchtower Errors by Bible verse: Index.

>in 1 cor 15, who is given a task, and from whom did it originate?

I assume you are referring to 1Cor 15:23-28 where Paul teaches that Jesus "must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet":

23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I am currently in my morning `quiet time' studying 1 Corinthians as part of my Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament series, and even I was amazed at how many times the Apostle Paul called Jesus "Lord" (Gk. kurios) in the sense of Jehovah:

"Confessing One Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians) Paul frequently refers to Jesus as `Lord' in 1 Corinthians in such a way as to identify him as, or equate him with, the Lord Jehovah of the Old Testament ... Christians, according to Paul, are `all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1:2). The Old Testament, of course, taught that one should call on the name of the Lord YHWH (e.g., Joel 2:32 ... Paul says that Christians hope to be found `blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:8; see also 5:5), whereas the Old Testament spoke of that judgment day as `the day of YHWH' (e.g., Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31) ... Paul then exhorts his readers `by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:10), again placing the focus on the name of the Lord Jesus that Judaism placed on the name of the Lord YHWH." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," pp.162-163).

"... After quoting the words of Jeremiah about boasting only in the Lord [YHWH] (Jer. 9:23-24) ... Paul is applying the words of Jeremiah about boasting in the Lord [YHWH] to the Lord Jesus, as he probably does also in 2 Corinthians 10:17 (see also Gal. 6:14; Phil. 3:3)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.163).

"... Paul states, `The one who examines me is the Lord' (4:4 NASB). This `Lord' must be Jesus because Paul ... regards the Lord Jesus as the one who will sit in judgment (recall 1:8; see also 11:32; 2 Cor. 5:10). It is Jesus who is the `Lord' who will `come' and `bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts' (4:5 NASB) ... this is what the Old Testament taught that the Lord (YHWH) would do (1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chron. 28:9; Ps. 96:13; 139:23-24; Prov. 16:2; 17:3; Jer. 17:10)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164a).

"Paul says that the members of the Christian church assemble `in the name of our Lord Jesus' (5:4 NASB). The `assembly' or `congregation' in the Old Testament was the congregation of YHWH; it gathered in his name ..." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164b).

"... Christians confess that they are `justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' (6:11), even though the Old Testament summons all people to be justified `in the Lord' YHWH (Isa. 45:25 NASB)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164c).

"Paul wants a Christian to be `anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord,' with the ideal being `unhindered devotion to the Lord' (7:32-35). The purpose of life according to the Old Testament is, of course, to please the Lord YHWH (Exod. 15:26; Deut. 6:18; etc.). ... Thus, Paul makes religious devotion or service to the Lord Jesus the ideal and purpose of the Christian life." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164d).

"Paul warns, `You cannot ... partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons' (1 Cor. 10:21). Here the ... table of the Lord refer to the rite of the `Lord's Supper' (cf. 10:16; 11:20) that the Lord Jesus established. The expression `table of the LORD' is an Old Testament expression for the altar ... (Mal. 1:7, 12). Paul contrasts the observance of the Lord's Supper with pagan observances ... (10:20; echoing Deut. 32:21). Such a contrast ... treats the Lord Jesus as the divine object of the religious observance. Paul then asks, `Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?' (10:22). This ... alludes again to Deuteronomy 32:21, where Moses warned against provoking the Lord YHWH to jealousy ... In short, Paul here assumes that the Lord Jesus is in fact the Lord YHWH." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, pp.164-165).

".. Paul writes, `If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. ... The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you' (1 Cor. 16:22-23 NASB) ... The importance attached to loving the Lord (Jesus) here is especially striking in view of the Old Testament commandment to `love the LORD [YHWH] your God' with all your heart, soul, and strength (Deut. 6:5 ...)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.165).

"... what may be the most striking reference to Jesus as Lord [YHWH], in 1 Corinthians. Paul states that Christians know that `there is no God but one' (1 Cor. 8:4 NIV) ... and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live' (vv. 5-6 NIV) ... If Judaism has a creed, it is the words of Deuteronomy 6:4-5, known as the Shema ..`Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one ... In first-century Judaism, the affirmations of `one God' and `one Lord' were synonymous and referred to the same divine being, YHWH ... Jews ... would just as surely have understood Paul's affirmation of `one Lord' ... as an echo of the Shema-yet with one potentially shocking twist: he identifies this `one Lord' as Jesus Christ." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, pp.165-166)

>and, when the task is complete, authority is returned, handed back to whom?

As the passage above says, "when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father." Note that it does not say to "Jehovah" (Gk. kurios) because, as Paul says or indicates hundreds of times in his writings (and especially in 1 Corinthians -as I will show in my future post, "Jesus is Jehovah in 1 Corinthians"), Jesus is Jehovah come in the flesh!

And as I pointed out in part #3, the submission of the Son to the Father is in no way inconsistent with the Trinity:

"The Submission of Jesus to God Perhaps the most frequently heard argument against Jesus being God by nature and equal in deity to the Father is the biblical teaching regarding Jesus' submission to the Father. ... For instance, they note that ... 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that the Son will subject himself to God the Father after sin and death have been eliminated ... they conclude that Jesus was not simply lower than the Father temporarily while on earth, but will always be in submission to God. Two points may be made that will show that none of these Scriptures contradicts the Bible's teaching that Jesus Christ is God. First ... If Jesus' body was raised from the dead ... as trinitarians believe, then as a man Jesus would still naturally be in some sense required to submit to the Father as his God." (Bowman, 1989, pp.78-79).

"... second ... the submission of the Son to the Father after his resurrection and ascension is ... in no way inconsistent with the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the three persons are equal to one another in essence or nature, and it leaves open the question of how the three persons relate to one another within the Trinity. Thus, while trinitarians insist that Christ is just as much God as the Father, they do not deny that the Son is in some sense submissive to the Father even after his ascension." (Bowman, 1989, p.80).

"[1Cor 15:27-28] The statement that the Son also himself shall be subject to God has been thought by some to lower the dignity of the Son of God, as well as, possibly, to cast a reflection on his deity. The subjection, however, is not that of the Son as Son, but as the incarnate Son. This, of course, does not involve inequality of essence. The son of a king may be officially subordinate and yet equal in nature to his father ... Paul's point is this: The Son as incarnate Son has all power now (cf. Mt 28:18). When he delivers up the administration of 'the earthly kingdom to the Father, then the triune God will reign as God and no longer through the incarnate Son ..." (Johnson, 1962, "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," p.1257).

>if jesus is jehovah, there is no father/son relationship. it is one. there are not two [not to mention three].

No. The Bible teaches both that Jesus is Jehovah and there is a Father/Son relationship.

>such a belief repudiates the almighty father / obedient son relationship.

No. The Bible teaches both that Jesus is almighty (Gk. pantokrator = pas "all" + kratos "rule"):

Mt 28:18. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Jn 17:1-2. 1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

Acts 10:36. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

1Cor 15:25-27. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

Eph 1:20-22. 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Rev 1:7-8 7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

and he is in an "obedient son relationship" with the Father:

Mt 26:39. Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Rom 5:19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Php 2:8. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross!

Heb 5:7-8. 7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered

Heb 10:5-7. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, 'Here I am-it is written about me in the scroll-I have come to do your will, O God.' "

>therefore, it is the teaching of the antichrist, no father, no son, just one.

No. It is the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that Jesus is Jehovah, and God is the Father and Jesus is God the Son.

>so the bible says i am correct.

No. It is not the Bible that says you are correct. It is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, a proven false prophet, that says you are correct. The Watchtower Society has actually admitted that if "Jehovah's people" read "the Bible exclusively" they will revert back to "the doctrines that Christendom's clergy" teach (which includes the Trinity"):

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively ... But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the ... doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching ..." (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, p.29) .

That is, the Watchtower admits that Christianity's doctrines (including the Trinity) are based on the Bible but the Watchtower's doctrines are not!

>it also says, your teaching of the triad god, modeled after the babylonians, is wrong.

No. The Christian Trinity is based on the Bible and is, as the word implies, a tri-unity, i.e. three-in-one. That is one Triune God, not a "triad" of three separate gods, like the Babylonian triads of Nannar-Sin, Ishtar and Shamash, and Anu, Enlil and Ea (see above). That these Babylonian triads were groupings of three separate gods is evident from the above, in that: 1) the Babylonians had at least two different triads of three completely different gods; 2) at least one of those gods, Shamash, had a female consort, Aya; 3) one of those three gods, Ishtar could be replaced by another god, Adad; and 4) these two Babylonian triads were eventually amalgamated into a `quad-ad' of four gods.

So the Watchtower Society is deceiving itself and then deceiving its followers, i.e. "deceiving and being deceived" (2Tim 3:13), by not making clear to its followers the major differerences between the Babylonian (and other pagan) triads and Christian doctrine of the Trinity which explicitly states, that: 1) "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God"; 2) "And yet they are not three Gods, but one God":

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God." ("Athanasian Creed," Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

Also, the Babylonian Empire ceased to exist in 529 BC. So it is simply absurd for the Watchtower to claim, and gullible for JWs like you to believe it, that Christianity, which demonstrably gets its doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible, would somehow be influenced by the religion of a long-dead empire, which even when it existed, could not agree what its three gods were!

>back to you, chet!
>
>grandpa len

Len (or any JW, indeed any non-Christian, who reads this), Jesus warned the Jews (who already worshipped Jehovah) that now that He had come, that was no longer enough. Unless they believed that Jesus was I AM (i.e. Jehovah Ex 3:14; Dt 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 52:6), they would die in their sins:

Jn 8:24 LITV Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM [i.e. YHWH], you will die in your sins.

The same applies to Jehovah's Witnesses (like yourself) today. If you continue to believe what that proven false prophet, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society says, over against what the Bible says, namely that Jesus is Jehovah, who came in the flesh, then Jesus Himself has stated that you will die in your sins.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

---

"The Submission of Jesus to God Perhaps the most frequently heard argument against Jesus being God by nature and equal in deity to the Father is the biblical teaching regarding Jesus' submission to the Father. The JWs realize that trinitarians believe that in his human nature Christ was in a position of submission to the Father. However, the Witnesses argue that this cannot account for Jesus submitting to God after his resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven. Thus, JWs, although they do quote Scriptures that speak of Christ's humble position relative to the Father while a man on earth (especially John 14:28), rely even more so on Scriptures that speak of Christ's submission after his resurrection. For instance, they note that 1 Corinthians 11:3 says that `God is the head of Christ'; 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that the Son will subject himself to God the Father after sin and death have been eliminated; and various Scriptures say that even now, after Christ's ascension, the Father is Christ's God (e.g., John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; Rev. 1:6; 3:12). On the basis of these Scriptures, they conclude that Jesus was not simply lower than the Father temporarily while on earth, but will always be in submission to God. Two points may be made that will show that none of these Scriptures contradicts the Bible's teaching that Jesus Christ is God. First, the JWs' argument assumes that Jesus is no longer a man. The Witnesses believe that the physical body of Jesus was never raised to life, but was `raised' ('recreated' might be more accurate) as a mere spirit. If Jesus' body was raised from the dead, though, as trinitarians believe, then as a man Jesus would still naturally be in some sense required to submit to the Father as his God." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, pp.78-79. Emphasis original).

"The second point that ought to be made about the submission of the Son to the Father after his resurrection and ascension is that such submission is in no way inconsistent with the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the three persons are equal to one another in essence or nature, and it leaves open the question of how the three persons relate to one another within the Trinity. Thus, while trinitarians insist that Christ is just as much God as the Father, they do not deny that the Son is in some sense submissive to the Father even after his ascension." (Bowman, 1989, p.80).

"Confessing One Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians) Paul frequently refers to Jesus as `Lord' in 1 Corinthians in such a way as to identify him as, or equate him with, the Lord Jehovah of the Old Testament. Three instances appear in the opening ten verses alone. Christians, according to Paul, are `all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1:2). The Old Testament, of course, taught that one should call on the name of the Lord YHWH (e.g., Joel 2:32, which, as we have seen, Paul also applied to Jesus in Romans 10:13). A few verses later, Paul says that Christians hope to be found `blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:8; see also 5:5), whereas the Old Testament spoke of that judgment day as `the day of YHWH' (e.g., Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31). The allusion to `the day of the Lord' (cf. Joel 2:31) in the same context as `calling on the name of the Lord' (cf. Joel 2:32) makes it all the more likely that Paul's language alludes directly to Joel. He refers to this future day of the Lord Jesus in several other epistles (2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:18). Paul then exhorts his readers `by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:10), again placing the focus on the name of the Lord Jesus that Judaism placed on the name of the Lord YHWH." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.162-163. Emphasis original).

")Paul continues to refer to Jesus as Lord in similar ways throughout the epistle: After quoting the words of Jeremiah about boasting only in the Lord [YHWH] (Jer. 9:23-24), Paul says that his whole message to the Corinthians could be summed up as `Jesus Christ, and him crucified' (1:31; 2:2). This Jesus who was crucified, Paul says, was `the Lord of glory' (2:8). In context, then, Paul is applying the words of Jeremiah about boasting in the Lord [YHWH]to the Lord Jesus, as he probably does also in 2 Corinthians 10:17 (see also Gal. 6:14; Phil. 3:3)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.163).

"In answer to his critics, Paul states, `The one who examines me is the Lord' (4:4 NASB). This `Lord' must be Jesus because Paul, like the rest of the New Testament writers, regards the Lord Jesus as the one who will sit in judgment (recall 1:8; see also 11:32; 2 Cor. 5:10). It is Jesus who is the `Lord' who will `come' and `bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts' (4:5 NASB). Again, this is what the Old Testament taught that the Lord (YHWH) would do (1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chron. 28:9; Ps. 96:13; 139:23-24; Prov. 16:2; 17:3; Jer. 17:10)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164a).

"Paul says that the members of the Christian church assemble `in the name of our Lord Jesus' (5:4 NASB). The `assembly' or `congregation' in the Old Testament was the congregation of YHWH; it gathered in his name. In Paul's thought, the congregations of believers are the congregations (or churches, ekklesiai) of Christ (see Rom. 16:16)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164b).

"According to Paul, Christians confess that they are `justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' (6:11), even though the Old Testament summons all people to be justified `in the Lord' YHWH (Isa. 45:25 NASB)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164c).

"Paul wants a Christian to be `anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord,' with the ideal being `unhindered devotion to the Lord' (7:32-35). The purpose of life according to the Old Testament is, of course, to please the Lord YHWH (Exod. 15:26; Deut. 6:18; etc.). The only other use in the New Testament of any form of the verb translated in 1 Corinthians 7:35 as `devotion' (euparedron, also translated `service') is just a couple of chapters later in the same epistle, where Paul says that those who `serve' (paredreuontes) at the altar share in what is offered at the altar (9:13). Thus, Paul makes religious devotion or service to the Lord Jesus the ideal and purpose of the Christian life." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.164d).

"Paul warns, `You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons' (1 Cor. 10:21). Here the cup and table of the Lord refer to the rite of the `Lord's Supper' (cf. 10:16; 11:20) that the Lord Jesus established. The expression `table of the LORD' is an Old Testament expression for the altar, which the prophet Malachi warned against defiling (Mal. 1:7, 12). Paul contrasts the observance of the Lord's Supper with pagan observances that honor the false gods of demonically inspired pagan religion (10:20; echoing Deut. 32:21). Such a contrast implicitly treats the Lord Jesus as the divine object of the religious observance. Paul then asks, `Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?' (10:22). This rhetorical question clearly alludes again to Deuteronomy 32:21, where Moses warned against provoking the Lord YHWH to jealousy. Paul's train of thought here makes no sense unless the `Lord' whom we should avoid provoking to jealousy (10:22) is the same `Lord' to whom belong the cup and the table (10:21). In short, Paul here assumes that the Lord Jesus is in fact the Lord YHWH." ( Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, pp.164-165).

"At the end of the epistle, Paul writes, `If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you' (1 Cor. 16:22-23 NASB). In this short space, Paul calls for those who do not love the Lord to be cursed, prays to the Lord to come ... and attributes divine grace or favor to the Lord Jesus. The importance attached to loving the Lord (Jesus) here is especially striking in view of the Old Testament commandment to `love the LORD [YHWH] your God' with all your heart, soul, and strength (Deut. 6:5 ...)." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, p.165).

"It is in this broader context that we should read what may be the most striking reference to Jesus as Lord [YHWH], in 1 Corinthians. Paul states that Christians know that `there is no God but one' (1 Cor. 8:4 NIV). `For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many `gods' and many `lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live' (vv. 5-6 NIV). Verse 6 may well be a creed or confession of faith that Paul is quoting or that he composed himself ... If Judaism has a creed, it is the words of Deuteronomy 6:4-5, known as the Shema (meaning `hear,' the first word of the verse): `Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might' (ESV). The Septuagint translated the last part of verse 4, `The Lord our God is one Lord' (kurios heis). In first-century Judaism, the affirmations of `one God' and `one Lord' were synonymous and referred to the same divine being, YHWH, the God of the patriarchs, of Moses, and of the prophets. Jesus affirmed the Shema as the first and greatest commandment (Matt. 22:36-38; Mark 12:28-30; cf Luke 10:25-28), and in that regard his view was in the mainstream of Judaism. Paul and other New Testament writers echo the Shema when they affirm that God is one or that there is one God (Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 12:6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Jews, however, would just as surely have understood Paul's affirmation of `one Lord' (particularly in the same breath as affirming `one God') as an echo of the Shema-yet with one potentially shocking twist: he identifies this `one Lord' as Jesus Christ." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, pp.165-166).

"[1Cor 15:27-28] The statement that the Son also himself shall be subject to God has been thought by some to lower the dignity of the Son of God, as well as, possibly, to cast a reflection on his deity. The subjection, however, is not that of the Son as Son, but as the incarnate Son. This, of course, does not involve inequality of essence. The son of a king may be officially subordinate and yet equal in nature to his father (cf. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 333-335). Paul's point is this: The Son as incarnate Son has all power now (cf. Mt 28:18). When he delivers up the administration of 'the earthly kingdom to the Father, then the triune God will reign as God and no longer through the incarnate Son. Messiahship is a phase of the Son's eternal Sonship (cf. Moffatt, MNT, p. 249)." (Johnson, S.L, "I Corinthians," in Pfeiffer, C.F. & Harrison, E.F., eds.., 1962, "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," Oliphants: London, Reprinted, 1963, p.1257).

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. They do not want to serve `shoulder to shoulder' with the worldwide brotherhood. (Compare Ephesians 2:19-22.) Rather, they present a `stubborn shoulder' to Jehovah's words. (Zech. 7:11, 12) Reviling the pattern of the `pure language' that Jehovah has so graciously taught his people over the past century, these haughty ones try to draw the `sheep' away from the one international `flock' that Jesus has gathered in the earth. (John 10:7-10, 16) They try to sow doubts and to separate unsuspecting ones from the bounteous `table' of spiritual food spread at the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses, where truly there is `nothing lacking.' (Ps. 23:1-6) They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago, and some have even returned to celebrating Christendom's festivals again, such as the Roman Saturnalia of December 25!" ("Serving Jehovah `Shoulder to Shoulder'," The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, pp.28-29, p.29).

Re: Is Jesus Jehovah? Please answer the following #3

grandpa len

Continued from my "Re: Is Jesus Jehovah? Please answer the following #2" with this the third part of my

[Left: Ron Rhodes' comprehensive, 437-page, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" (1993). See quotes below from this and other Christian books responding to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's false claims.]

four-part response to your series of questions in a comment under my post, "Watchtower Errors by Bible verse: Index." Again, your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: grandpa len
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:29 AM
Subject: [Jesus is Jehovah!] New comment on Watchtower Errors by Bible verse: Index.

>on whose right hand does he sit?

"God" the Father (not "Jehovah" (Gk. kurios "Lord"):

Mk 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Ac 2:33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.

Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Ac 7:56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.

Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Eph 1:20 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his [God's] right hand in the heavenly places,

Col 3:1 If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.

Heb 10:12 but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

1Pet 3:22 who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

See also the following synonyms for "God":

Mt 26:64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

Mk 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

Lk 22:69 But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God.

Heb 1:3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 8:1 Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

Heb 12:2 looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The only references to Jesus being at the right hand of "Jehovah" (i.e. Gk. kurios "Lord") is when it is a quote of:

Ps 110:1 Jehovah saith unto my Lord [Heb. adoni], Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

as follows:

Mt 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet?

Mk 12:36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.

Lk 20:42 For David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Ac 2:34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

and one that does not actually mention "the Lord" or "my Lord":

Heb 1:13 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?

But this is only a problem to Jehovah's Witnesses with their preconceived philosophical apriori Unitarian view of God. It is no problem at all for Christians with their Bible-based Trinitarian view of God, the answer being that this is Jehovah the Father talking to Jehovah the Son:

"Psalm 110:1 ... Jehovah's Witnesses ... argue ... that the Lord Jesus must be a mere created being, since Jehovah God is addressing a person distinct from himself. ... Knowledgeable Christians who read this verse will grasp that God the Father is speaking to the Son. " (Reed, 1986, pp.35-36).

"... Psalm 110 shows God, the Father in heaven, talking to the Son (also God) upon the earth." (Reed, 1986, pp.36-37).

"Psalm 110:1-Jehovah and `My Lord'. ... This verse makes perfect sense within the scope of trinitarian theology. .... Scripture not only teaches that the Messiah would be the Son of David in terms of His humanity, it also teaches that He is God ... Here we have the first person of the Trinity speaking to the second person of the Trinity." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.161-162).

>from whom did jesus receive authority, as noted in Mt 28?

It doesn't actually say in "Mt 28" from whom Jesus received "All authority ... in heaven and on earth":

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

but presumably it was from God the Father, who is mentioned in the next verse (along with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit):

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

>is jesus a ventriloquist? if not, who was speaking at his baptism?

It was God the Father speaking to God the Son, with God the Holy Spirit descending on Him:

Mt 3:16-17 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mk 1:10-11 And straightway coming up out of the water, he [Jesus] saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him: And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.

Lk 3:21-22 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

The account of Jesus' baptism in Mt 3:16-17; Mk 1:10-11 & Lk 3:21-22, where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together in the same verse, is one of a number of such verses (e.g. Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2) that are evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was held, albeit not in a fully developed form, by the New Testament writers:

"... Jesus' Baptism ... Matthew 3:16,17 by itself does not prove the doctrine of the Trinity. No Trinitarian bases his belief in the Trinity on a single verse, but rather on the accumulative evidence of the whole of Scripture ... Though Matthew 3:16,17 may not by itself prove the doctrine of the Trinity, it definitely supports the doctrine ..." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.241-243).

"One other common prooftext for the Trinity ... is ... Matt. 3:16-17 ... These ... do support the belief that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, and also ... these three persons are God. But their chief importance ... is in demonstrating that the New Testament writers did think along `trinitarian' lines ... this trinitarian pattern ... pervades the New Testament." (Bowman, 1989, pp.126-127).

"... Christ ... At His baptism, the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, the Father spoke, and the Son was baptized. What further proof is needed to show a threefold unity? Compare the baptism of Christ (Mt 3:16-17) with the commission to preach in the threefold name of God (Mt 28:19), and the evidence is clear and undeniable." (Martin & Klann, 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," pp.44-45).

"Certainly the best known example of the existence of three persons [in the Trinity] is the baptism of Jesus recorded in Matthew 3:16-17: .. Here the Father speaks from heaven, the Son is being baptized .. and the Spirit is descending as a dove ... There is no confusing of the persons at the baptism of the Lord Jesus." (White, 1998, "The Forgotten Trinity," pp.154-155).

>why is jesus spoken of as the head of the congregation just as jehovah is the head of the christ?

It does not say "Jehovah," but "the head of Christ is God," i.e. the Father:

1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

But "the head of Christ is God" in the same sense that "the man" (i.e. "the husband") is "head of the woman" (i.e. "the wife"). That is, just as man and woman are equal in human nature, yet within the marriage relationship the husband has the role of head, so within the Trinity the Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are equal in God nature, but the Father has the role of head:

"1 Corinthians 11:3 ... the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (KJV) Jehovah's Witnesses use this verse, too, in their attempt to deny the deity of Christ. But this passage .. simply shows that the principle of headship applies. Within the human family, the head of the woman is the man. Does that mean that women are a lower form of life than men? ... Not at all! It is simply God's arrangement that someone act as head ... Likewise within the Godhead-the Father acts as head without diminishing the full deity of the Son." (Reed, 1986, pp.96-97).

"1 Corinthians 11:3-God, the Head of Christ? ... The Jehovah's Witnesses say that because Jehovah is said to be the head of Christ, then Christ cannot be God. ... 1 Corinthians 11:3 ... has to do with patterns of authority. Notice that Paul says the man is the head of the woman ... Even though men and women are completely equal in terms of their nature, there is nevertheless a functional hierarchy that exists between them. In the same way, Christ and the Father are utterly equal in their divine being ... even though Jesus is functionally under the Father's headship." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.140-141).

"... the submission of the Son to the Father ... is in no way inconsistent with the Trinity. ... For example, 1 Corinthians 11:3 [NASB] says that `God is the head of Christ.' But it also says that .. the man (that is, the husband) is the head of the woman (that is, his wife). Now, the Bible is very clear that men and women are equal in terms of nature ... Female submission, then, is a matter of function or position or role, not of essential superiority of the man over the woman. ..." (Bowman, 1989, pp.80-81).

>if jesus is god, who is the mediator? why pray thru him when we can pray TO him?

The Bible teaches that Jesus is both God (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6, Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20) and the mediator between God and man:

1Tim 2:5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,

The Watchtower's claim that Jesus cannot be God because "a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation," is obviously false. Apart from human mediators who do mediate between humans in dispute, on the Watchtower's `reasoning' Jesus could then not be man either. But because Jesus is both God and man, He is the only possible mediator between God and man:

"... The New World Translation renders 1 Timothy 2:5 .., `For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus ...' The Watchtower Society argues that because Jesus is said to mediate `between God and men,' it is clear that He cannot be viewed as God. ...`since by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation, it would be a contradiction for Jesus to be one entity with either of the parties he is trying to reconcile. ... The folly of this reasoning is at once evident in the fact that if Jesus as mediator cannot be God, then, by the same logic, He cannot be man either. ... The fact is, Jesus can mediate between God and man precisely because He is both God and man. ... Christ had to be both God and man to secure man's salvation ..." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.286-288).

Concluded in part #4.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

---

"The second point that ought to be made about the submission of the Son to the Father after his resurrection and ascension is that such submission is in no way inconsistent with the Trinity. ... An examination of the `subordinationist' texts cited by JWs bears out this point. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:3 [NASB] says that `God is the head of Christ.' But it also says that Christ is the head of every man, and that the man (that is, the husband) is the head of the woman (that is, his wife). Now, the Bible is very clear that men and women are equal in terms of nature; both are fully human, both are in God's image, and in Christ they are one (Gen. 1:26-28; Gal. 3:28). Female submission, then, is a matter of function or position or role, not of essential superiority of the man over the woman. As for Christ's being the head of every man, in context this also refers to a functional headship, not an essential superiority. And in one sense Christ is not essentially superior to men, since Christ himself is a man, as we have seen. Of course, in another sense Christ is far superior to men in essence, since Christ is also God." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, pp.80-81).

"One other common prooftext for the Trinity ought to be mentioned. When Jesus is baptized, the Holy Spirit symbolically descends on him as a dove, and the Father announces that Jesus is his Son (Matt. 3:16-17; see also Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34). The JW booklet [Should You Believe in the Trinity?] argues that the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism implies `that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time' (p. 23), but this is not said. Are we to believe that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15), while the Son of God was devoid of the Spirit until he was about thirty years old? Are we to believe that a mere human, which according to the Witnesses Jesus was, lived a sinless life for about thirty years without the help of the Holy Spirit? The fact is that the Holy Spirit's descent on Jesus was not for him to become actively present in Jesus' life for the first time, but to mark publicly the beginning of Jesus' ministry and manifest to the world that the Spirit was indeed on Jesus. These prooftexts, then, do support the belief that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, and also lend some support-though probably not absolute proof-to the belief that these three persons are God. But their chief importance does not lie in their constituting isolated prooftexts for the Trinity as a complete doctrine. No one verse tells us everything about God. The importance of these texts is in demonstrating that the New Testament writers did think along `trinitarian' lines, without the formal vocabulary, of course, of later trinitarian theology. But it is not just in a few prooftexts that this threefoldness, this trinitarian pattern, is to be found. On the contrary, it pervades the New Testament." (Bowman, 1989, pp.126-127).

"Christians do not believe that the Trinity was incarnate in Christ and that they were `three in one' during Christ's ministry. Christ voluntarily limited Himself in His earthly body, but heaven was always open to Him. At His baptism, the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, the Father spoke, and the Son was baptized. What further proof is needed to show a threefold unity? Compare the baptism of Christ (Mt 3:16-17) with the commission to preach in the threefold name of God (Mt 28:19), and the evidence is clear and undeniable. Of course, it is not possible to fathom this great revelation completely, but this we do know: there is a unity of substance, not three gods, and that unity is one in every sense, which no reasonable person can doubt after surveying the evidence. When Jesus said, `My Father is greater than I,' He spoke the truth; for in the form of a servant (Phil 2:7) and as a man, the Son was subject to the Father willingly; but upon His resurrection and in the radiance of His glory (vv. 7-8), He showed forth His deity when He declared, `All authority is surrendered to me in heaven and in earth' (Mt 28:18); proof positive of His genuine nature and unity of substance. It is evident, then, that the Lord Jesus Christ was never inferior, spiritually speaking, to His Father during His sojourn on earth; and contrary to the view of Jehovah's Witnesses, even during the days of His flesh, there was no subordination of His essence, since He said that `all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father' (Jn 5:23, KJV)." (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1974, pp.44-45).

"Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (KJV) Jehovah's Witnesses ... open their New World Translation and read the same verse: `The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is... .' They go on to argue (1) that the New World Translation is a superior Bible to use, because it does not have the Lord talking to himself; and (2) that the Lord Jesus must be a mere created being, since Jehovah God is addressing a person distinct from himself. To answer the first argument, it is only necessary to look at the text more closely. It does not say that `the Lord' was talking to `the Lord.' Most translations render the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH as `the LORD' (all capital letters), who is talking to the psalmist's `Lord' (both capital and small letters), the Messiah. .... Knowledgeable Christians who read this verse will grasp that God the Father is speaking to the Son. The second Witness argument-that Jesus cannot be God because `the LORD' spoke to him- is also a faulty one. The New Testament records many conversations between Jesus and the Father, but this does not disprove the deity of Christ. The Bible reveals that the Father is God (John 6:27, etc.) and that the Son is God (Isa. 9:6, John 20:28, etc.), yet there is only one God (1 Cor. 8:4)." (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.35-36).

"In explaining to Witnesses the fact that Psalm 110 shows God, the Father in heaven, talking to the Son (also God) upon the earth, it may help to invite them to turn to Genesis 18 and 19 in their own New World Translation. There it says that `Jehovah appeared to him' [Abraham] as `three men' or angels (18:1-2). Abraham addressed the three as `Jehovah' (18:3). Two of them left Abraham and went toward the city of Sodom, but Abraham continued to address the remaining individual as `Jehovah' (18:22, 19:1). When the other two reached Sodom and spoke with Abraham's relative Lot, he addressed the two of them as `Jehovah' (19:18). And, when the city of Sodom was destroyed, the New World Translation says at Genesis 19:24: `Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens ... .' So, unless the Witnesses want to claim that there is more than one Jehovah, they will have to admit that God can be in more than one place at the same time, and that he can hold simultaneous conversations with different people in different places. This should make it easier for them to grasp that the Father can talk to the Son, without calling into question the deity of Christ." (Reed, 1986, pp.36-37).

"1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (KJV) Jehovah's Witnesses use this verse, too, in their attempt to deny the deity of Christ. But this passage does not support Watchtower doctrine that Christ was an angel created by God. It simply shows that the principle of headship applies. Within the human family, the head of the woman is the man. Does that mean that women are a lower form of life than men? Are women somehow inferior to men? Not at all! It is simply God's arrangement that someone act as head, and he assigned that role to the man. Likewise within the Godhead-the Father acts as head without diminishing the full deity of the Son." (Reed, 1986, pp.96-97).

"1 Corinthians 11:3-God, the Head of Christ? ... The New World Translation renders 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God" (emphasis added). The Jehovah's Witnesses say that because Jehovah is said to be the head of Christ, then Christ cannot be God. If Christ were God, then He would be the head. ... A close examination of 1 Corinthians 11:3 shows that it has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority of one person over another; rather, it has to do with patterns of authority. Notice that Paul says the man is the head of the woman, even though men and women are utterly equal in their essential being. The Bible clearly teaches that men and women are equal in terms of nature. They are both human and both are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-28). They are also said to be one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). These verses, taken with 1 Corinthians 11:3, show us that equality of being and social hierarchy are not mutually exclusive. Even though men and women are completely equal in terms of their nature, there is nevertheless a functional hierarchy that exists between them. In the same way, Christ and the Father are utterly equal in their divine being (Jesus said, `I and the Father are one' [John 10:30]), even though Jesus is functionally under the Father's headship. There is no contradiction in affirming both an equality of being and a functional subordination among the Persons in the Godhead. Christ in His divine nature is fully equal to the Father, even though relationally (or functionally) He is subordinate or submissive to the Father, especially since becoming a man. So in no way does 1 Corinthians 11:3 imply that Jesus is less than God." (Rhodes, 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.140-141).

"Psalm 110:1-Jehovah and `My Lord'. ... Psalm 110:1 in the New World Translation reads, `The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: `Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet' (emphasis added). The Jehovah's Witnesses say that since Jehovah is speaking in this verse, and since the `Lord' is a distinct person from Jehovah, then Jesus must not be God Almighty. Reasoning from the Scriptures explains that in Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus claims that He Himself is the `Lord' referred to by David in this psalm. They therefore conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah, but is the one to whom Jehovah's words were spoken. ["Reasoning from the Scriptures," 1989, p.198] ... This verse makes perfect sense within the scope of trinitarian theology. In the broader context of Matthew 22:41-46, we find Christ `putting the Pharisees into a corner' by asking them a question relating to the person of the Messiah. He asked, `Whose son is he?' (Matthew 22:42). They responded, `The Son of David.' Their answer was correct since the Old Testament thoroughly established the Davidic lineage of the Messiah (2 Samuel 7:14). But their answer was also incomplete. Scripture not only teaches that the Messiah would be the Son of David in terms of His humanity, it also teaches that He is God-and it is the latter fact that Christ wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge. Christ, of course, anticipated the Pharisees' half-answer. That's why in the next verse He quoted a Davidic psalm: `The LORD says to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet' (Matthew 22:43; cf. Psalm 110:1). Now, the words `my Lord' are a reference to David's Messiah. This divine Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of `the LORD' (God the Father). Here we have the first person of the Trinity speaking to the second person of the Trinity. [Reymond, R.L., "Jesus. Divine Messiah," Presbyterian & Reformed: Phillipsburg NJ, 1990, p.105]" (Rhodes, 1993, pp.161-162).

"Matthew 3:16,17 - Jesus' Baptism ... The Watchtower Society argues that Matthew 3:16,17 does not prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. The booklet Should You Believe in the Trinity? notes that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together a number of times, but this does not make them one. Likewise, Peter, James, and John are mentioned together, but this does not make them one. [Ibid., p.23] Hence, Matthew 3:16,17 does not support the doctrine of the Trinity. ... As is true with 2 Corinthians 13:14, Matthew 3:16,17 by itself does not prove the doctrine of the Trinity. No Trinitarian bases his belief in the Trinity on a single verse, but rather on the accumulative evidence of the whole of Scripture. When Matthew 3:16,17 is considered with other passages, there can be no doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. ... Though Matthew 3:16,17 may not by itself prove the doctrine of the Trinity, it definitely supports the doctrine. ... In view of those facts, we must conclude that when the Father and the Son are mentioned in Matthew 3:16,17, they are spoken of in terms of their eternal deity. This adds supportive evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. ... Matthew 3:16,17 is an excellent support text for affirming the reality of the Trinity." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.241-243).

"1 Timothy 2:5 ... The New World Translation renders 1 Timothy 2:5 .., `For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus ...' The Watchtower Society argues that because Jesus is said to mediate `between God and men,' it is clear that He cannot be viewed as God. After all, `since by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation, it would be a contradiction for Jesus to be one entity with either of the parties he is trying to reconcile. That would be a pretending to be something he is not.' ["Should You Believe in the Trinity?" 1989, p.16] Their conclusion, then, is that Christ as a mediator cannot be viewed as God. How could Jesus mediate between God and man if He Himself was God? ... Is it true that because Jesus is a mediator between God and man, He cannot be God, since `by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation'? [Ibid] By no means! The folly of this reasoning is at once evident in the fact that if Jesus as mediator cannot be God, then, by the same logic, He cannot be man either. [Bowman, R.M., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity," 1989, p.73] The fact is, Jesus can mediate between God and man precisely because He is both God and man. [Ibid] Indeed, humankind's redemption was completely dependent upon the human-divine union in Christ. If Christ the Redeemer had been only God, He could not have died, since God by His very nature cannot die. It was only as a man that Christ could represent humanity and die as a man. As God, however, Christ's death had infinite value sufficient to provide redemption for the sins of all people. Clearly, then, Christ had to be both God and man to secure man's salvation ..." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.286-288).

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. They do not want to serve `shoulder to shoulder' with the worldwide brotherhood. (Compare Ephesians 2:19-22.) Rather, they present a `stubborn shoulder' to Jehovah's words. (Zech. 7:11, 12) Reviling the pattern of the `pure language' that Jehovah has so graciously taught his people over the past century, these haughty ones try to draw the `sheep' away from the one international `flock' that Jesus has gathered in the earth. (John 10:7-10, 16) They try to sow doubts and to separate unsuspecting ones from the bounteous `table' of spiritual food spread at the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses, where truly there is `nothing lacking.' (Ps. 23:1-6) They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago, and some have even returned to celebrating Christendom's festivals again, such as the Roman Saturnalia of December 25!" ("Serving Jehovah `Shoulder to Shoulder'," The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, pp.28-29, p.29).

"Certainly the best known example of the existence of three persons [in the Trinity] is the baptism of Jesus recorded in Matthew 3:16-17: After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, `This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.' Here the Father speaks from heaven, the Son is being baptized (and is again described as being the object of the Father's love ...), and the Spirit is descending as a dove. Jesus is not speaking to himself but is spoken to by the Father. There is no confusing of the persons at the baptism of the Lord Jesus." (White, J.R., 1998, "The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, pp.154-155).