Proving to Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus is God
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have completely changed the Bible with their New World Translation. They are desperate to show that Jesus is not God. There is a long list of Scriptures that prove that Jesus is one with God, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done their best to edit those out of their bible. The following list works even with their bible.
| Name | Applied to Jehovah | Applied to Jesus |
|
Alpha and Omega
|
Revelation 1:8 |
Revelation 22:13 |
|
Lord of Lords
|
Deuteronomy 10:17 |
Revelation 17:14 |
|
First and Last
|
Isaiah 44:6 |
Revelation 1:17-18, 22:13 |
|
King |
Isaiah 43:15 |
Revelation 17:14
|
|
Owner |
Jeremiah 3:14 |
Jude 4
|
|
Husband |
Hosea 2:16 |
Revelation 21:9
|
|
Savior |
Isaiah 43:11 |
Luke 2:11
|
|
Judge |
Genesis 18:25 |
2 Timothy 4:8
|
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have some other problems as well. In trying to demote Jesus to being lower than God, they say He’s a lesser god, but a god nonetheless (their version of John 1:1 says, “the Word was a god”). In this, they become polytheists, which I’m sure they don’t want to be, and it’s completely contradictory to even their bible.
They also say that Jesus is Michael the archangel. There are zero verses that would indicate this, and there are only a handful of verses that refer to Michael. They’ve been knocking on my door about once a month for the last few months, and I asked the last pair of ladies for their reason for believing that Jesus is Michael the archangel. They quoted Jude 9, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” I just told them that that verse doesn’t even say anything about Jesus.
Since then, I’ve learned that that verse not only doesn’t indicate anything about Jesus being Michael the archangel, but it in fact proves that Jesus is not Michael. Michael called on the Lord to rebuke the devil, but Jesus never hesitated to rebuke the devil or demons Himself (Matthew 4:10, Matthew 17:18, Luke 4:41, etc.).
I think once you’ve got them thinking, this is a good time to go through a few of the Ten Commandments (Galatians 3:24), and conclude by saying that if they don’t have a proper understanding of who Jesus is, they won’t be saved (John 8:24). Any way you look at it, Jehovah’s Witnesses are terribly deceived, and all you can do is make an attempt to correct their understanding. Hopefully it will make them think, and they’ll get saved someday.
June 22, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Since you have all this enlightened information, I have a suggestion for you: Why don’t YOU go door to door, in the market places, and in the streets, where the people are, in observance of Jesus command to Christians. Matthew 28:19-20 (any translation). It is easy to criticize, but the only ones that are out there day in and day out preaching to all the nations are Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you have a “better” message, get properly dressed and come to my door (or wherever else people are found) and share it with me!
June 22, 2007 at 5:53 pm
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.” (I hope you have the courage to publish my comment) Thank you.
June 23, 2007 at 8:04 am
Mario,
I agree that most Christians are completely disobedient to the Great Commission, and it makes me wonder whether they’re Christians at all. This blog is dedicated to encouraging Christians to witness. Feel free to check out the other posts. You’ll see that I try to be obedient to the Great Commission. I definitely admire the courage of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m sure most people aren’t very nice.
Whenever someone posts a comment for the first time, it always says the comment is awaiting moderation. I suppose there’s somewhere I could change the settings, but I haven’t taken the time to look. Whatever comments you post will show up automatically from now on.
Do you have something specific you disagree with in this post?
June 23, 2007 at 8:55 am
Mario Sicilia, just because they do it door to door, any where, any time, does not change the fact that they are incorrect. Even the muslims do that sometimes! The point of this article is to “prove” that Jesus is the Lord.
Yes, he mentioned about the holy father, but if you read the bible carefully he also mentioned “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
June 23, 2007 at 9:00 am
Sorry, in addition to the last comment on the same subject, I would like to add a few things for Mario Sicilia, Please read http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/jw.htm
You will then know what JW is all about. Thank you.
June 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm
What you have presented might be something new to some but I’ve been now a baptized witnesses for 40 years this June and can read both the Hebrew and Greek and quite frankly fail to see any Bible verse you’ve presented that proves that Jesus is equal to his Almighty Father. Jesus is the Son of the Father. Theos Greek for god is applied to both the Father, the Father’s Son (Jesus) and to certain men, and to angels. So what do our lexicon agree as to what “theos”, “elohim” or “el” really is? Look it up, it’s not what you’re trying to make it out to be.
Likewise, it seems that your understanding of the Hebrew mal·’akh′ and the Greek ag′ge·los litterally mean, otherwise your comments would differ.
Sorry, but most people know that we Jehovah’s Witnesses know our Bibles and know why Almighty God’s name has been removed from most book store Bibles.
Please show me one place in the Bible where Almight God Jehovah is subject to someone else and I’ll show you 10 where Jesus is subject (lesser) to his Father. Show me one place in the Bible where Jehovah God has a God, and I’ll show you that Jesus says he has a God several times. Show me one place where Jesus tells us to pray to him and I’ll show you that he repeated tells us to pray only to the Father. Note John 17:3 . ”This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” So, who is the only true God? and who’s the one he sent forth?
We’re not blinded as to who Almighty God is, and who the Son is. I have yet to find a single error in the NWT of the Holy Scriptures but I’m sure there’s some but give me your choice of translations and I’ll translate for you from the Hebrew or Greek into English what it should be of many specific errors. NIV, AS, KJ, New Jerusalem, NASB, RS, Youngs of the hundreds.
Tara
June 24, 2007 at 8:49 am
Tara,
Thanks for your comment.
First of all, Jesus is equal to the Father. He became flesh, and took on the limitations of a human (Hebrews 2:17-18). A wife is supposed to submit to her husband, but this doesn’t make her inferior. She is absolutely equal to her husband, but she has a God-given role to play out.
So, maybe you can start at the top of the table. How does Jehovah call Himself the Alpha and Omega, and then Jesus call Himself Alpha and Omega? If Jesus isn’t God, why isn’t this blasphemy?
Also, I was curious about your polytheism? How do you reconcile that with all of the verses that say there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6, Galatians 3:20, etc.). Just for my own interest, would you consider yourself to be a good person? Would you say that you’re born-again?
Thanks,
Bill
June 24, 2007 at 9:29 am
I’m sorry to dissapoint you Tara, but did you actually see (in person) that the NWT was authentically translated from the Greek or … Hebrew perhaps? The point is, how can YOU be sure that the translation wasn’t corrupted?. If you read the link that I gave Mr. Mario Sicilia on my last comment, you will know the story of how it all began (The Watchtower).
My suggestion is, before you start believing into something, do a research first.
The Watchtower has predicted the end of the world for 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1989. Jesus himself in fact didn’t even know for sure when the world would end! Only his father in heaven does.
Have you ever read “Millions Now Living Will Never Die”, published by The Watchtower on July 15, 1924? On page 89 it said:
“The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914. We may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old…to the condition of human perfection”
That was a false prophecy!
If being a Jehovah’s Witness is the only way to an earthy paradise, what would the men who lived before 1884 become? The Watchtower didnt even exist that time! I’d say poor on them.
Acts 13:25 - And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.
How can we, ordinary men have the privilege to mention God’s name (in this case: Jehovah) ?
Thank you.
June 24, 2007 at 9:58 am
Oh man there are so many things I need to write but I didn’t dare to make this beautiful blog look ugly : ) but I really can’t help it. Sorry Mr. Bill Philips. I really love this blog!
People need to start learning to understand the meaning of Trinity. It is the basic thing of how to understand Jesus, and His Father who sent him.
They are equal! One. Uno.
When Jesus came to earth, he took form of a human. Would you expect that God himself who came to earth and speak to His own creations?
Acts 9:3 - And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Acts 9:4 - And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Acts 9:5 - And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 9:6 - And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
If you analyze from those verses carefully the light that shined around Saul from heaven was Jesus! And Saul asked who are you LORD?
If Jesus was an ordinary man, or a prophet, or whatever it is you think he was in the form of flesh and blood, he surely couldn’t be that light who spoke from heaven!
If you say Jesus is Michael (the Archangel, or may be the other Michael which I’m not very sure of) there are ZERO verses that says that. Deuteronomy 10:17 - Jesus is Lord of Lords. And Michael obviously is not.
June 24, 2007 at 10:38 am
1 Corinthians 6:3 - Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
This verse concludes that Jesus is not an angel, the Archangel, or any form of angels. We don’t judge Jesus, or maybe you think we will?
This is ridiculous. That are so many verses that lead Jesus to equal as His Father but the JW just don’t want to see it.
John 10:25 - Jesus answered, “I have already told you, but you would not believe me. The deeds I do by my Father’s authority speak on my behalf;
10:26 - but you will not believe, for you are not my sheep.
10:27 - My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
10:28 - I give them eternal life, and they shall never die. No one can snatch them away from me.
10:29 - What my Father has given me is greater than everything, and no one can snatch them away from the Father’s care.
10:30 - The Father and I are one.”
10:31 - Then the people again picked up stones to throw at him.
10:32 - Jesus said to them, “I have done many good deeds in your presence which the Father gave me to do; for which one of these do you want to stone me?”
10:33 - They answered, “We do not want to stone you because of any good deeds, but because of your blasphemy! You are only a man, but you are trying to make yourself God!”
10:34 - Jesus answered, “It is written in your own Law that God said, ‘You are gods.’
10:35 - We know that what the scripture says is true forever; and God called those people gods, the people to whom his message was given.
10:36 - As for me, the Father chose me and sent me into the world. How, then, can you say that I blaspheme because I said that I am the Son of God?
10:37 - Do not believe me, then, if I am not doing the things my Father wants me to do.
10:38 - But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, you should at least believe my deeds, in order that you may know once and for all that the Father is in me and that I am in the Father.”
Take a special look on the 10:30 and the 10:38 !
Jesus always spoke on his father’s behalf because he was a man. If you don’t want to believe this fact that means you are similar to the persons who had wanted to stone Jesus! And need I to remind you that God does not like that at all?
No one actually knows or have the CERTAINTY what the word Jehovah really means. It is an ancient word spoken only by holy prophets, and we definitely are not holy.
June 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm
A little add-on to what Jestia had said, hopefully this will bring back Tara. We love you Tara!
John
14:4 - You know the way that leads to the place where I am going.”
14:5 - Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; so how can we know the way to get there?”
14:6 - Jesus answered him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except by me.
14:7 - Now that you have known me,” he said to them, “you will know my Father also, and from now on you do know him and you have seen him.”
14:8 - Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father; that is all we need.”
14:9 - Jesus answered, “For a long time I have been with you all; yet you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Why, then, do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
July 6, 2007 at 11:24 am
This is a very intersting dialogue. I recently wrote about witnessing to a “Witness.” If you are interested you can check it out at
http://www.morefire.wordpress.com
God bless!
August 3, 2007 at 8:59 am
[...] Witnesses’ Polytheism I questioned whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are polytheists in a previous post, and the more I’ve thought about it, the more pivotal I believe that question is. Their version [...]
August 3, 2007 at 9:33 am
[...] by healtheland on August 3rd, 2007 From Proving to Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus is God from [...]
August 4, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I just know,that JV. have their own beliefs. I don’t like to be pushed into their religion. I have had many advertisesment on my door. I just take them,after the people leave and throw them away. They don’t understand,what no solicting is? I think they are rude. Also,how would they like it,if i pushed my religion on them?? It mentions they are really against homosexuality. And think it is a very bad sin. Let them think that, cause i believe differently. I am not a homophobic like they are,or any other religion. JV. just makes me dislike them. Their ignorant.
August 5, 2007 at 4:13 pm
That list of scriptures and the applied to Jehovah - applied to Jesus, is meaningless. That is not how it works. Titles do not prove identity.
You leave out the important part.
Heb 9:11 and 9:24 say that Christ came as high priest to appear before the person of God. Thus that is definite proof that Jesus is not Jehovah. Jehovah does not appear before himself. The purpose of a high priest is to bridge the gap between Jehovah God and sinful man by someone who is neither.
Thus your belief that Jesus is Jehovah God denies salvation because it does the high priesthood of Jesus.
August 5, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Why do people focus so much on whether Jesus is Michael?
People argue against that not because Jesus is not Michael, but that if he is, then his is not God. Thus they are not looking at it independently.
If Jesus is not Michael it is no big deal.
August 6, 2007 at 8:33 am
Sorry,if i had put them down,like this. I just feel like the ones,i met push their religion,on people who have a different religion. I have neighbors,next door,and they seem to hide and do not want to be neighborly,i have tryed many times to talk with them. They seem to not want to be bothered.
August 6, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Steve,
Thanks for your comment.
Why do you believe that the list of titles is meaningless? If Jesus calls Himself the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, which are names Jehovah has reserved for Himself, He is claiming to be one with God.
I’m saying there is one God. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
How many gods do you believe there are? Are you born again?
Thanks,
Bill
August 6, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Deb,
Thanks for your comments. What is your religious background? If you’re a Christian would you say you’re born again?
Thanks,
Bill
September 3, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I believe that this world is totally mixed up, simply because we have this bible, and that bible, the koran, and everyone is believing what they were brought up to believe. The Holy bible says that jesus is the son of God a part of God that humbled himself in spirit to save the life of man. When jesus told the disciples when asked who to say sent them he said I AM, God is the great I AM. He also said that no one comes to the father but by me, understand that he and his father are one. And the gentleman that said when christ appeared to the man of God so that proves that jesus is not God, you need to study your bible or read a little more into the passage, He came as a high priest not of this world by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, meaning his passing through the heavens into the heavenly tabernacle to appear in the holy of holies there for us.
September 6, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Thanks for all of your comments.
My heart cries out for those who profess to be Jehovah’s Witnesses on here. Jesus said that He came that the world would be saved through Him (John 3:17). He wants no one to perish.
I am sure you who profess to be Jehovah’s Witnesses are committed sincerely to what you have been taught by the Watchtower Tract Society and believe it to be truth. However, it is not. Jesus IS the great I AM. He IS God manifested in the flesh. How great and awesome it is that God the Father (Yahweh, Jehovah) would make a way for sinful man to be reconciled to Himself! He did this by manifesting Himself in the flesh and humbling Himself to the point of death (Phil 2:5-11). This is not something that I can readily wrap my mind around as a human being, how God would choose to also become man for us, but I believe it by faith to be true. And this is the truth that gives eternal life.
God’s Word is true and the way of the cross is narrow. “Jesus said, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6).
Again…Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, the second person of the “trinity”. God the Father sent Jesus “that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). When Jesus ascended to heaven, where He is now seated at the right hand of the Father, He promised and left the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) within those who have believed in Him to continue to carry out His ministry here on earth (Matthew 28), which is to preach the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. Any other message that does not teach this truth is indeed “another gospel”. Any other message that depicts Jesus as anyone other than God manifested in the flesh/God the Son (i.e. “Jesus was just a good man/teacher”; “Jesus was just a prophet”; “Jesus is not the only way to God/heaven”; “Jesus is not God”; “Jesus is not equal to God”) is preaching “another Jesus” and NOT Jesus the Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah prophesied about in the Old Testament (Isaiah 6; Isaiah 9; Isaiah 53, etc.). Any and all such messages are damnable heresies that should be both rejected and spoken AGAINST by those of us who have been entrusted by God’s grace with the Truth.
Please read and understand Bible verses in context. Jesus would not have been hated and killed if He was not proclaiming that He was equal with God (”I and the Father are one”). The same way those who heard Him make this statement picked up stones to throw at Him when He said it, is the same way that those who profess to be Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to respond to the CONTINUED preaching of the true gospel message that Jesus “…and the Father are one…” (i.e. Jesus is God/is equal with God). If that statement is not true, then Jesus lied. Of course, as the Only True and Living God, He did not. His name was Immanuel, which means “GOD with us”.
September 11, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Jehovah’s Witnesses are aware that both the Father and Son have titles that are common to both. They also realize that these titles have different meanings. For example:
Both Husbands? Yes.
Jesus is married to the church, his Father Jehovah to Jerusalem Above.
Both Masters? Yes.
Jehovah is Grand Master he has placed his 1st born Son Jesus in charge over his slaves (servents) as in a household with servents, if the owner decides to put in 1st born over his servents…the owners Son is also their master. Also they must show the young master the same respect they would his father, their Grand Master.
Many Christians sincerely believe they are saved by God’s grace but are not. Find out why @ http://www.geocities.com/howtorecognizeafalsechurch
September 11, 2007 at 5:47 pm
TM,
Thanks for your comment. I hope we can start a conversation, as many other Jehovah’s Witnesses that have commented seem uninterested in continuing.
Maybe you should take a look at a few of those verses I cited. Jesus is claiming to be the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Lord of Lords, etc. not just borrowing a title. Besides that, the title He’s taking would be equivalent to “grand master”. Also, Grand Master may be a name for God in the New World Translation, but it isn’t found in any version I’ve looked in. Making up a new name for God is risky territory at best.
Also, I only believe there is one true God. The Bible talks about other gods, but they are false gods, such as idols and demons. So, who do you believe Jesus is?
I certainly agree that Christians must produce fruit as proof that they’re saved, but salvation is by grace alone, according to the Bible. Take a look at these: Matthew 26:28 says we’re saved by Jesus blood; Acts 10:43 Belief; Acts 16:31 Belief; Luke 7:50 Faith; Acts 13:38-39 Belief; Galatians 3:26 Belief; Galatians 2:20-21 Faith; John 3:14-18 Belief; John 3:36 Belief. I’d be interested in hearing why you don’t believe those. I have a couple dozen more if you’re interested.
Thanks,
Bill
September 13, 2007 at 7:12 am
To: Jehovah’s Witnesses
I’m starting to notice a pattern with Jehovah’s Witnesses. You will post a comment, and never check back. This leaves me looking stupid as I’m asking someone questions who apparently has no intention of ever answering them.
The whole purpose of this blog is to have discussions with people of all stripes about the Bible. I realize you consider me to be apostate, but if you want to leave a comment pointing out how I’m all wrong, I would ask you to please check back to continue the discussion.
You are more than welcome here, and I hope to have a nice discussion with you.
Thanks,
Bill
September 14, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Bill, there are many gods in heaven but only one is Almighty. Jehovah’s Witnesses worship only the Father, Almighty God. The common gods, Jesus included, are not worshiped. Jesus is worshiped as king by Jehovah’s Witnesses but not as God.
Note: Jesus in the book of Daniel is called a Mighty God. The “G” in God is capitalized because it is a title name. All title names must be in capital.
Jesus is inferior to Jehovah is Father in; time, knowledge, position, and power. The Bible says the head of the woman is the man…what part of the head of the Christ is God(Jehovah) do you not understand?
At Ps 100:3 it says, “Know that Jehovah is God. It is he that has made us and not we ourselves….” If Jehovah is God and Jesus is God’s Son, what does that mean? To Jehovah’s Witnesses it means Jesus is Jehovah’s Son.
Note: In your bible God’s name (YHWH) was removed and replaced with Lord and God.
Another thing, What is God’s name? Jehovah (Ps 100:3). Are all three called Jehovah? No, just one, the Father. So then what is the personal name of your triune God? The name of the true God is Jehovah–which is the name of the Father ALONE. What is the personal name of your triune God?
To your comment on the title Grand Master– “His grand master.” Heb., Adho.nav, pl. of a.dhohn, evidently to denote excellence.
September 15, 2007 at 7:29 am
There are many similarities between JWs and Christians, but there are far too many differences. The NWT falsely translates John 1:1 from “and the Word was God” to “and the Word was a god.” No Bible scholar or linguist would ever translate this verse in this manner, thus the JW’s agenda to co-opt scripture for the advancement of the doctrine is clearly seen in this passage. Yeshua is Yahweh (i.e. Jesus is Jehovah). There is no place in scripture where Jesus is stated as being Michael, yet JWs hold fast to this false doctrine. Jesus is called Immanuel, which means “God is with us.” Immanuel does not mean “A god is with us.”
In the KJV, the names of God were replaced by various terms. Jehovah is often replaced with LORD. Adonai is replaced with Lord. El Shaddai is replaced with Almighty God. Yet it remains consistent throughout scripture.
http://morefire.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/witnessing-to-a-witness/
September 15, 2007 at 8:06 am
TM,
In your bible, YHWH was replaced with Jehovah. We have no idea what the vowels are in YHWH, or how it was pronounced.
Please take a look at Revelation 1:11, 1:17-18, 21:6, 22:13. Jesus claims to be the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. He’s not just borrowing the Father’s title. He is claiming to be those things. Compare that with Revelation 1:8. The Alpha and Omega is the Almighty.
There is one true God, and plenty of false gods. Satan is referred to as a god (2 Corinthians 4:4), idols (Isaiah 42:17), humans with false god status (Psalm 82:6-7). In saying that there are lesser gods, you become a polytheist, regardless of whether you worship them. Just holding that other gods exist makes you a polytheist. Much like Hindus who have 300 million gods, with greather gods that receive worship, and lesser gods that don’t. There is one true God–the Father, Son and Holy Spirit–whose personal name is YHWH.
Ephesians 2:8-10 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
If God saving us starts a fire, the result should be smoke. Smoke is good deeds, baptism, etc. We don’t provide smoke hoping God will give us fire. Smoke results naturally from fire. If someone is going around talking about their fire, but has no smoke, you know they don’t really have a fire. They can talk all they want about their fire, but you know they’re hypocrites. Does that make sense?
Thank you for checking back and continuing the conversation. I truly enjoy it, and hope that you will, too. I hope you’re not offended by anything I say, but I do appreciate learning what you believe, and why.
Thanks,
Bill
September 15, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Bill, Christians are judged by their works. Jesus said, “By their fruits you will recognize them.” What fruits? For imitation Christians-by their ungodly actions and unbiblical doctrines you will know them.
Jehovah Witnesses practice righteous works. Works motivated by WRITTEN LAW-they take delight in the law of God, FAITH-they show their faith by their works, and LOVE OF GOD-move them to action.
2. Jehovah is the most recognized English form of God’s name. Jehovah/YHVH refers to the Father only. Because imitation Christians have changed God..their God has no personal name. Some even try to give God a new name…the Almighty Jehovah Jesus.
3. The Bible says their are those that are called gods in heaven. Who are those called gods? They are God’s angelic sons. They are common gods. No common god should receive worship as a god much less as Almighty God. That would be idolatry. Jesus receive worship not because he is a god (in heaven) but because he is a king. Kings receive worship. If you deny there are common gods in heaven you deny the truth.
4. Both Father and Son are called Saviours:
Jehovah is the principal saviour the source of all salvation. His salvation comes through Jesus Christ his Son. In Bible times it was Jehovah who saved the Jews through men such as Moses, Joshua, and Samson. Jehovah raised up many saviours (deliverers) for them. Moses, Joshua, and Samon were only a few.
Both Father and Son are called Kings and Lords.
Jehovah is King of all Kings and Lord of all Lords over all INCLUDING Jesus his Son. Jehovah subjected all things to his Son Jesus with the exception of himself. Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lord over all EXCEPT Jehovah his God and Father. The head of the Christ is God (Jehovah). “Blessed be (Jehovah) the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort.”
This will be my last post. If you would like to know some rotten fruits of false religions go to http://www.geocities.com/howtorecognizeafalsechurch
September 15, 2007 at 10:10 pm
TM,
You cited zero verses. Even if some of the things you say are true, I have no idea where to look them up.
When Jesus said you will know them by their fruits (Matt 7:16), He wasn’t saying He will determine their salvation by their fruits. He was saying we humans, not knowing the content of their hearts, can judge their fruit.
Buddhists do good works. Atheists do good works. Christians do good works. The question is whether God sees them as good works. Our righteous deeds are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), unless they’re prepared beforehand by God (Ephesians 2:10).
2. Why do you care what the most accepted English pronunciation of YHWH is? You’re willing to let the wicked world determine the pronunciation of God’s personal name?
Whether Jesus is the one true God certainly is an important issue. Are you basing your decision on the Bible, or on a magazine that comes in the mail?
3. I hereby deny the existence of common gods. There is one God. He said before Him no god was formed, nor will there be one after Him (Isaiah 43:10). If I read what you wrote correctly, you said that Jesus received worship (I certainly agree), and that isn’t idolatry, because He is a King. Worshiping any god other than the one God is idolatry. Jesus isn’t just a King worthy of worship; He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14).
4. What verse says the Father is the King of all Kings and the Lord of all Lords? I have two verses that say Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14, 19:16). How is the Father excluded from Kings and Lords to make those two verses true? What verse says the Father is excluded? You’re trying very hard to change the meaning of those verses, and I would suggest that you just edit those verses out of the next version of the NWT, and this problem will go away, like so many others.
I’m grateful that you wrote a couple more comments. Is it a Jehovah’s Witness rule that you can’t carry on too long of a conversation in this format, or your personal decision?
Thanks,
Bill
September 17, 2007 at 8:25 am
Hi Bill,
Your knowledge of the Bible is limited. It is my desicion to not post any more religious truths on your site. Your site is anti-JW. I have decided to heed Jesus’ command not to give what is holy to dogs, or throw my pearls before swines.
If you are truly seeking the truth and your heart is sincere, you will eventually find it. I will stare you in the right direction. The next time Jehovah’s Witnesses knock at your door, listen to them.
September 17, 2007 at 10:36 am
TM,
I think the next time they knock at my door, I will discuss their belief in common gods and polytheism, and Jesus’ claim to be the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, as they apparently have no good answer.
I’m not anti JW, however I’m anti JW spending eternity in the lake of fire because they don’t have a Savior. I’m pro JWs going to heaven with me, and I will pray for you.
Thanks,
Bill
September 18, 2007 at 12:16 am
Firstly that crack about Witnesses being the only ones that actually go from door to door is a serious misconception. The only reason they’re more visible is simply a brainwashing, mind-control technique well used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, to get thier poor, deceived followers to generate - get this- in 1998 the WT generated $951 000 000 in revenue, made with free labour. Now one may argue that printing books and preaching to the world is expensive, but hey, look at the cheap recycled paper used to print these “truths” on. Where is all that revenue really going? Since “Kingdom Halls” are built by volenteers and material is supplied by “loyal and descreet” slaves, even the land on which these buildings are built is in many cases donated. C’mon, you wanna tell me there isn’t something fishy going on here? If those so called 144 000 of which 10 of them sit at the WT headquarters, are indeed who they say they are, then I’m afraid, it’s because they say so. Keep an open mind and go to http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com and you be the judge.
September 18, 2007 at 12:38 am
Sorry but I seriously also need to add the following. I’m not posting these things up here to be mean to JWs. That’s the last thing on my mind at present. I was actively involved with them for quite a while, so was my wife. She was even baptised and all that. However the red lights started going on when I noticed what people so unmovingly believed in and what they actually practiced did not coincide, was a sure indicator that these folks are being very successfully steered around like drones. I noticed that no matter how much doubt a Witness has in what they believe in, the longer they are in the “truth” the harder it seems for them to let go. It becomes an ingrain way of life which immediately leads to depression and self resentment once the person tries to let go. What kind of a god would enslave people to such a painfull way? I don’t believe our God would ever do that to anyone. We are immediately labled “apostates” as soon as we see something the others simply can’t or refuse to. This all Witnesses have been taught from the onset. It’s even harder for their kids to let go since they are taught this way of life from birth. Totally incapable of making up their own minds by the time they reach maturity. It’s frustrating to see these folks let their already programmed lives make it close to impossible for them to think out side of the box. Believe me, a person in that state is very hard to get to, no matter how logical your approach may be. I know. I was there too once, this is why I used the term “close” to impossible, not entirely :) Where there’s hope there’s freedom.
September 18, 2007 at 7:53 am
Julian,
Thanks for your comment. I’ve barely scratched the surface of the website, and it’s very good.
Thanks,
Bill
September 18, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Oh it’s good alright Bill. What does bother me very much about the JW’s organisation is the fact that they so similarly operate the way the Free Masons do. But I still have loads of info in my arsenal which I think could help those trapped in thier way of life. This is a good site you have running here. And it felt good to share a bit of my own experiences.
God bless
Julian
October 21, 2007 at 7:19 am
Someone wrote:
“At Ps 100:3 it says, “Know that Jehovah is God. It is he that has made us and not we ourselves….” If Jehovah is God and Jesus is God’s Son, what does that mean? To Jehovah’s Witnesses it means Jesus is Jehovah’s Son.”
I think the error here is that the Father is not Yahweh; the Son is Yahweh. The Son is the Logos, sent by the Father, who in the writings of Philo of Alexandria is the High God. Philo says that in addition to the High God, there is a “second God,” the Logos who created the world. The key to understanding the early Christian view of Jesus is that he was Yahweh, the God of Israel, come to save his people. Early Christians saw Jesus as the “Angel of Yahweh” of the Old Testament, the manifestation of Yahweh to the people, and in the New Testament, every tongue is to confess that Jesus is LORD. “LORD” of course, is the NT equivalent term, when so used, for YAHWEH in the Old Testament, for which pious Jews substituted “Adonai,” “Lord” in Hebrew. When Mark speaks of preparing the way of THE LORD, it is referencing Isaiah, which speaks of preparing the way of YAHWEH. And of course, who then comes? Jesus.
If one understands the relationship between God the Father (the High God, “El Elyon” and the Son (the “second God,” Yahweh, the Logos and creator), then much in the New Testament and early Christianity becomes clear. Even Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, repeats this notion that Jesus is the “other” God, the second God. Early Christians did not speak of or use the term “Trinity,” but they understood the relationship between the primary and secondary gods, the second being an emanation of the first, the Son and so GOD/DIVINE by nature.
That is the explanation of the often battled-over distinctions made in the Greek of John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with THE GOD (God the Father, the “High God,” and THEOS (”divine,” GOD by nature, THEOS without the article) was the Logos.
The root of the problem most Christians have in understanding the Christology of the New Testament is that they make the fundamental error of confusing Yahweh with the Father. But to early Christians THE FATHER WAS NOT YAHWEH. Yahweh was the Son, the Logos, the “image of the invisible God (the Father). Start reading the New Testament with this understanding, and suddenly things begin, at last, to make sense.
October 21, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Hokku,
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6). I don’t want to assume anything, or read into your writing, but if you believe in more than one god, that is polytheism, and is incorrect.
I would agree that Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah. The Father is also Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah. There is no other God besides Jehovah (Isaiah 43:10-11). The Alpha and Omega (Jesus) is the Almighty (Revelation 1:8).
Thanks for your comment.
Bill
October 22, 2007 at 7:07 am
Obviously Judaism in the time of Philo was not strictly monotheistic as it is understood today; nor was the Christianity of Justin Martyr. Both believed the Logos was creator, but not the High God. Both believed the Logos was Divine, but not the Father. It is this distinction that not only explains John 1:1, but a great deal else in the New Testament and in early Christianity. It is an identity of nature (the Logos is an emanation of the Father) but not of person. That is why early Christians considered the oOld Testament appearances of the “Angel of Yahweh” to be appearances of Jesus. Yahweh was the God of Israel in the Old Testament. Other nations had their own assigned gods, the sons of El Elyon, originally. In the New Testament, Yahweh comes to save his people. The Father is not the one who comes. The Father is not Yahweh. Yahweh is sent by the Father.
October 22, 2007 at 8:10 am
The entire Bible is clearly monotheistic. There are dozens of verses. If there is something you’re reading, such as Philo, that contradicts the Bible, you can know for certain that it is wrong. The New Testament agrees with the Old Testament. There is only one God.
“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.” (Isaiah 43:10-11).
“This is what the LORD says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6)
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isaiah 44:8).
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:5-6).
“Remember this, fix it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.” (Isaiah 46:8-9).
I don’t know how much clearer God can be on this topic.
Thanks,
Bill
October 23, 2007 at 8:33 am
billphillips Says:
“The entire Bible is clearly monotheistic.”
The supposed monotheism of the Bible (in specific the Old Testament), is actually the result of a later revisionism that tried to eliminate the henotheism of the early texts. Even in Genesis we have evidence of more than one divine being. Elohim created the heavens and the earth. Elohim (usually explained away as a supposed “plural of majesty” literally means “GODS.” It is a Hebrew plural form. Continuing on, we find the words “Let US make man in OUR image.” Again plural. The Old Testament shows us that originally there was a Heavenly Court, with the High God, El Elyon, and his sons, one of whom was YAHWEH.
Interestingly, we can see the revisionism at work simply by examining two versions of Deuteronomy 32:8
In the Septuagint text, considered superior at this point by the RSV, we read:
“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” In the Masoretic text, “Sons of God” has been changed to “Sons of Israel,” an obvious revision to remove the reference to multiple heavenly beings and replace it with something less offensive to later theology. Deuteronomy 32:9 then tells us that Yahweh’s part of the division of territories was Israel. Yahweh was assigned to be the god of Israel. Of course other territories were each assigned their own “Son of God,” their own national deity. In early OT theology this was simply understood; different nations had different Gods, but Israel was to worship Yahweh. Later that was all changed, and we see the effects in revisions to the Old Testament and its understanding. But traces of the original multi-deity theology are still there and still obvious. This, incidentally, is quite in keeping with what we know archeologically of worship in the early area of the Near East.
October 23, 2007 at 9:24 am
Hokku,
God created the world, but He’s unable to get us a reliable book in 2007?
You’re misunderstanding many of those examples, and having a proper understanding the Trinity would help out tremendously.
Are you born again? What religion/denomination do you belong to?
Thanks,
Bill
October 23, 2007 at 9:50 am
billphillips said:
“God created the world, but He’s unable to get us a reliable book in 2007?”
Apparently, because if you read any good Bible translation, you will find that there are a great many alternate readings — places where it is uncertain just what the original text said. Look, for example, at the end of Mark, which gives the story of post resurrection appearances of Jesus. It is a later addition, not found in the earliest and best manuscripts, which end the story with the running of the frightened women from the tomb, who say nothing about what they have supposedly seen.
A number of these uncertain (and therefore unreliable) readings have to do specifically with the “deity” of Jesus — Whether he can be considered “God” or not.
And of course not only are there other important uncertainties in places like supposed prophecies of Jesus. The words “they pierced my hands and my feet” in the Old Testament are actually, in the Hebrew, so corrupt that no one knows what they originally said. In the Hebrew text they read “like a lion my hands and my feet.”
Going further, the Dead Sea Scrolls, earlier than the Masoretic text from which the OT is generally translated, actually give us two quite different lengths for the book of Jeremiah! There is a longer version and a shorter version!
Even the books included in the Bible change according to when in history we look at it. There were books included in early Bibles that are not included today. There were books that some Christian communities accepted, while other communities rejected them. Some thought the Gospel of John was written by a Gnostic; some thought Revelation was heretical. And of course even today scholars tell us that a number of the books in the Bible were not written by those whose names are on them.
And, of course, there are differences in translation. Does Genesis say “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth being formless and empty,” or does it say “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”? Some Bibles use the former, some the latter, because they Hebrew text, being originally without vowel points IS UNCERTAIN. Does 2 Timothy 3:16 say that “all scripture is inspired by God” or does it say, “every inspired scripture”? It all depends on the translation, because as it stands, the text is uncertain. And there are many, many more examples that could be given.
Reliable in 2007? Definitely not.
October 23, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hokku,
Would you consider yourself to be a good person? Are you born again?
Thanks,
Bill
October 23, 2007 at 12:07 pm
billphillips Says:
“Would you consider yourself to be a good person? Are you born again?”
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. I have known lots of claimed “born again” people who are basically the same as they were before, just with different beliefs. So that is not the issue. Nor is whether one is “good” or “not good,” in addition to which that depends on definition. Is a tribe that slaughters its neighbors, as God told the Israelites to do in the OT, “good”? Not in my definition.
The issue is really whether the Bible, which is the source of Christian doctrine, is historically and factually reliable and trustworthy and correct. In my view it is none of those, and I think the evidence easily bears that out.
That means we not only read the Bible critically, as we would any book (one hopes), but we also try to determine just what it is the writers believed at the period in which the book was written. The OT reveals periods of both poytheism (or henotheism) and monotheism, and we can still see the stitches were these two views were sewn together. That is why in the NT, it is premature to talk about a “Trinity,” but we can nonetheless see that in texts such as “John,” Jesus is depicted as the Logos, the incarnation of the “second God” of Israel, spoken of both in Philo of Alexandria and in the writings of Justin Martyr. Read from the point of view that Jesus is Yahweh, “divine” but not the Father, and much not only in John but in Revelation becomes clear. Later this doctrine was obscured, and people began to mistakenly think that the “Father” was Yahweh, which confused Christians and still confuses them to no end.
It is this view that makes both many “traditional” Christians and “Jehovah’s Witnesses extremes both incorrect and untenable. Many Christians think the Father is Yahweh and Jesus is Yahweh. Jehovah’s Witnesses think Yahweh is the Father and Jesus is not, but rather only an angel (”angel is one of the terms for Jesus, but early Christians considered him the “Angel of Yahweh” of the OT — the manifestation of Yahweh in visible form.)
Of course all of this is just academic, and is like discussing how many angels, in theory, can dance on the point of a pin. It has nothing to do with reality, but does give us a better understanding of the biblical texts and what early Christians actually believed (and incidentally, they did not all believe the same things).
October 23, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Hokku,
Whether you’re born again is an extremely important question. A lot of people give me dirty looks when I suggest such a thing, because they would never want to associate themselves with a bunch of nutcase born-againers. You refuse to give me a straight answer, so I assume you’re not. You’re unable to discern spiritual things, because the carnal mind can’t understand them (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Jesus said we can’t go to heaven unless we’re born again (John 3:3). This concept is throughout the New Testament. Whether you consider yourself to be a good person is also important. If you’re morally good you can go to heaven without Jesus’ sacrifice. However, if you’re like the rest of us, you’re an evil sinner, born an enemy of God (Colossians 1:21), dead in your transgressions (Ephesians 2:1), and your heart is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9).
You can use your desperately wicked heart and stand in judgment over the Bible if you wish, but it’s not going to work out for you. The Bible stands in judgment over you. If you’ve ever told a lie, you’ve broken God’s law. You’re a lawbreaker, and a liar, and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).
“Remember this, fix it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:8-9).
Thanks,
Bill
October 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Again, you are missing the point.
You wrote:
“You’re unable to discern spiritual things, because the carnal mind can’t understand them (1 Corinthians 2:14).”
All those “spiritual things” you talk about are rooted in the Bible. The Bible is the fundamental issue. If it is flawed, then it is all flawed. And of course obviously Christians are not able “to discern spiritual things,” because they cannot even agree on such basics as whether Jesus is God or not, or whether the world was created in seven 24-hour days, or whether children must be baptized, or whether the Lord’s Supper is the real body and blood of Jesus or a symbol.
But this is nothing new. Christians have been disagreeing since the time of Paul, who bickered with other Christians over who had the “true” teaching, and the same happened when Luther raised his principle of Sola Scriptura, “Scripture alone,” because Luther immediately found out that when OTHER people began to read the Bible, they understood it differently, and so Protestantism begin almost immediately by splitting into disagreeing sects who were obviously not able to “discern spiritual things” either.
As Mark Twain wrote,
“Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven….”
With at last count 38,000 plus Christian sects, obviously their ability to “discern spiritual things” is not functioning as advertised.
October 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Hokku,
There are Catholics who place the tradition of men over the Bible. They don’t trust the Bible, so they have a different religion. The Mormons have 3 extra books of scripture that disagree with the Bible. The JWs have a horrible translation of the Bible, and can’t read the Bible without a Watchtower magazine. Don’t lump born again Christians in with cults.
Born again Christians can disagree on issues such as baptism and tongues and hymns or rock music. They can choose to go to church in different buildings. They can’t and don’t disagree on:
1. Jesus being fully God and fully man
2. The Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus
3. There being only one God
4. salvation is by grace through faith
5. Jesus rose from the dead physically
If someone doesn’t pass that test, they usually won’t even claim to be born again.
Every question you have can be answered with the Bible. Throw Philo away. Seek your answers in the Bible. You will give an account on Judgment Day for every sin you’ve ever committed. You must be born again. Figure out what Jesus meant by that and do it.
Thanks,
Bill
October 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Again, you are not looking square at the problem.
You say ” Seek your answers in the Bible. ” That is not a solution. The Bible has no real answers. It just raises lots of questions, which Christians have a great deal of trouble answering sensibly.
But I can see this is not going anywhere, so no point in my commenting further on this issue. Thanks for the space.
October 23, 2007 at 5:15 pm
The Bible doesn’t have answers for you, because your mind has been blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4). Repent and put your faith in Jesus (Mark 1:15).
Thanks for the conversation.
Bill
November 19, 2007 at 8:30 am
[...] there are many ways to show them Jesus is God using even their Bible. I gave a few examples in a previous post, but here are a few [...]
November 20, 2007 at 2:00 pm
[Robert wrote a comment citing the instances where Jesus prayed, and said this is proof that He isn't God. As it's been more than a week since Robert's comment, and he never wrote back, I have deleted his comment. I do this in hopes that it will encourage others who wish to start a debate to actually continue the debate.]
Robert,
Thanks for your comment. I look forward to your thoughts on my reply (preferably without the condescension).
1. People can pray to whoever/whatever they want. If they’re not praying to the one true God, this would be idolatry.
2. Only God should be prayed to.
Jesus is prayed to in: Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2. In John 14:14, Jesus says, “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Do you not ask Jesus for things in His name? If you do, is this idolatry? If you don’t, why not?
In 1 Cor. 1:9 it says, “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” How can we have fellowship with someone we never talk to? Do you have fellowship with Jesus? Do you have fellowship with the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14)?
Jesus submitted Himself to coming to earth and living lower than the angels for a time(Hebrews 2:7), and under the law (Galatians 4:4). He kept the law perfectly, including praying to and submitting Himself to the Father.
I assume you’re a Jehovah’s Witness. Am I correct? I keep asking you guys whether you are born again, so I hope you will answer that question.
Thanks,
Bill
November 21, 2007 at 9:33 am
You wrote:
1. Jesus being fully God and fully man
2. The Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus
3. There being only one God
4. salvation is by grace through faith
5. Jesus rose from the dead physically.
That is largely a Protestant creation. Early Christians held varying viewpoints on these topics.
Your item one is the result of the Church creeds of the 4th century.
Item two is open to opinion, giving that Mark begins, “The good news of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophets, behold I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you.” That seems to indicate there was more to the “gospel” than your #2.
That there was “only one God” also was dependent on opinion, because of course Jews who held to the Hebrew Scriptures such as Philo believed there was a “second God,” the emanation of the first, and not only Justin Martyr but also the Gospel of John agree.
As for salvation by grace through faith, that was fine if one was a Pauline Christian, but other Christians, such as the author of James, disagreed. Faith by itself was not enough — faith without works was dead.
Did Jesus rise “physically.” Well, it all depends on how one understands resurrection. Paul thought Jesus rose, but not in a physical body, but rather a “spiritual” body (flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven). So Paul did not really need an empty tomb, and nowhere mentions one.
Christianity never really was a single, monolithic belief, but from the beginnings Christians differed on various topics, thus the constant bickering of Paul with other groups that disagreed with his version of Christianity — including the church in Jerusalem.
November 21, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hokku,
1. I think you agree that Jesus is God. 1 John 4:2-3 says, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”
2. The Gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The verse you cited from Mark contains no contradictory definition. Galatians 1:8-9 says there is only one Gospel that will work for us.
3. Isaiah 46:8-9 makes it clear that we must believe in only one God. I wrote a post a week or two ago with dozens of verses from beginning to end (including the book of John), that say there is only one God. You can reject the Bible if you like, but you can’t pretend it’s anything other than strictly monotheistic.
4. There are two ways to get to heaven. One is to be perfect, thereby earning heaven. One is to go through Jesus. Jesus is the one that made it clear that this is a gift that can’t be earned (John 3:16, etc). The natural result of being born again is good deeds. Good deed aren’t to earn salvation, but the result of salvation. Galatians 3:10 and 5:1-3 make it clear that trying to pay for this gift with good deeds isn’t going to work.
5. Paul says that if Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, he is to be pitied above all men (1 Corinthians 15). The disciples touched Jesus’ body; Jesus ate food with them.
Rest assured I can show you in the Bible all of these doctrines. They’re not made up. You may not like it, but they are in the Bible. We can disagree on whether speaking in tongues is valid for today, but these five items are not negotiable.
Thanks,
Bill
November 21, 2007 at 1:04 pm
BillPhillips wrote:
1. “I think you agree that Jesus is God.”
Well, not really, because I am talking about what others believed in early times. In my view many early Christians considered Jesus to be “God” in the sense that he was the Logos, the emanation of the “First” God who created the world. I think there is support for that not only in the gospel attributed to John, but also elsewhere in the NT and in early Christian writings. Jesus was considered by many early Christians to be Yahweh, but Yahweh was not the “Father” in the language of Jesus. That is why the prologue to John distinguishes, in the Greek, between “ho theos,” God the “Father” in the language of Jesus, and “theos,” the Logos as divine, the “second God” of Philo and of Justin Martyr.
You wrote:
2. “The Gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The verse you cited from Mark contains no contradictory definition. Galatians 1:8-9 says there is only one Gospel that will work for us.”
The PAULINE Gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians. But we need not assume it is identical to the gospel attributed by many early Christians to Jesus, which seems to have consisted largely in the proclamation of the soon-to-come Kingdom of God –”Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near.” But of course the Kingdom of God expected by Jesus never came.
You wrote:
3. “Isaiah 46:8-9 makes it clear that we must believe in only one God. ”
One cannot expect the books of the Bible to be consistent, because they were written by many different people over a vast stretch of time, and often express quite different viewpoints. The early Hebrews were polytheists and henotheists, with a theology not too dissimilar from that of their Canaanite neighbors, and traces of that theology still remain in the OT, not to mention in archeological evidence. But added to that in the OT is a later, more monotheistic revisionism found here and there. So there is really more than one point of view on this matter expressed by the OT. The NT often repeats a rather polytheistic view in its presentation of Jesus as Yahweh, one of the Sons of El in the OT, to whom the care of Israel was entrusted. Much of Christianity still preserves an essentially polytheistic approach in the Trinity doctrine, which maintains that one God is really three.
You wrote:
“There are two ways to get to heaven. One is to be perfect, thereby earning heaven. One is to go through Jesus. Jesus is the one that made it clear that this is a gift that can’t be earned (John 3:16, etc). The natural result of being born again is good deeds. Good deed aren’t to earn salvation, but the result of salvation.”
I think you are referring to Pauline salvation by faith — “faith alone” as Luther put it in his translation of the Bible, but as Luther recognized, James had a different and more traditionally Jewish opinion — that faith alone was not enough. That is why Luther considered James an “epistle of straw” — because it opposed his preferred doctrine of salvation by faith alone. To me this is one of the points in the conflict between Pauline Christianity and the more traditionally Jewish Christianity likely represented by the Jerusalem Church.
You wrote:
5. “Paul says that if Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, he is to be pitied above all men (1 Corinthians 15). The disciples touched Jesus’ body; Jesus ate food with them.”
Again, you are mixing books. Paul says nothing about anyone touching Jesus, or Jesus eating with anyone, but it is rather immaterial (no pun intended) here; the significant thing is that Paul said quite clearly that the resurrection body is not a normal physical body. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. And Paul, as already mentioned, says clearly that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Paul believed Jesus was resurrected, obviously, but he did not believe he was resurrected in the identical body that was buried. Thus no need for an empty tomb, which Paul NEVER mentions as evidence of the resurrection.
You wrote:
“We can disagree on whether speaking in tongues is valid for today, but these five items are not negotiable.”
Actually, I think we would disagree on whether glossolalia was EVER valid in the sense of being authentic rather than a psychological manifestation — and we would probably even disagree on what it means to “speak in tongues,” but as for the rest of it, there has always been disagreement and dissension among various groups of Christian believers, and we see it evidenced in the NT as early as the writings of Paul, considered the earliest Christian writings in the NT. And of course there is, as I already wrote, also disagreement between early and later teachings in the OT and the NT — for example the development of belief in a “Hell” as opposed to Sheol as simply the dark realm of the dead in the OT, and the development of a belief in Satan as the great opponent of God, as contrasted with the OT attitude toward Satan as merely being one who opposes or tests. Beliefs change and doctrines change, and all we can do is trace those changes historically. We need not accept any of them as they were at any point.
November 21, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Hokku,
I agree hell was an idea that was not clear in the Old Testament. Heaven isn’t all that clear either. But what we do know is that while the NT brings in a lot of new details, none of it conflicts with the OT.
I think the entire Bible is God’s Word. All I can tell you is that the Bible harmonizes beautifully when you read it plainly.
Thanks,
Bill
November 21, 2007 at 2:19 pm
It is not just that the modern Protestant concept of Hell “was not clear in the OT,” but rather that it did not exist at all in the OT. Nor does the Trinity doctrine, as understood in the 4th century and later, find any place in the OT (which is, of course, why Jews do not believe in a Trinity.
I think history itself immediately disproves your statement “the Bible harmonizes beautifully when you read it plainly.” Luther found out the falsehood of that right away, because as soon as others began interpreting the newly-translated Bible for themselves, Protestantism began splitting into numerous divisions. And as I already wrote, there never was a time when Christianity was simply one monolithic belief system, because there are divisions obvious even in the earliest Christian writings.
I do not consider the Bible to be “God’s Word.” I think if a deity were to want to communicate a vitally important message to humans, it would not be done through a fallible anthology of documents written and edited and revised by fallible humans in copies subject to change and obviously not clear and consistent enough in what they teach to be comprehensible. The multiplicity of Christian sects is witness to that. And that does not even include the many contradictions with what we know scientifically of the origins and nature of the universe — something of which the biblical writers were completely ignorant.
November 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I think there are hints at hell and the Trinity in the Old Testament. Daniel 12:2 hints at hell. Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, and Zechariah 12:10 are pretty clear about the deity of the Messiah. I think I could come up with a pretty good argument for the Trinity from the OT, but it would only be because I have the knowledge of the NT, so I don’t blame the Jews for not seeing it.
I agree that there are thousands of protestant churches. However, 99% of them agree on the 5 points I gave you. Even Catholics agree with all of those 5 except salvation by faith alone.
True science agrees with the Bible, and the scientific facts in the Bible are evidence that the Bible is the word of God. Satan’s first interaction with humans was to cast doubt on what God said, and it sounds like you’ve gone for that.
You and I can probably debate the Bible for a very long time. I think maybe one of the only things that is going to get us anywhere is the resurrection of Jesus. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? If you don’t, have you examined the evidence? If you do, what do you think the implications are?
Thanks,
Bill
November 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Scientific facts in the Bible? Like the solid sky of Genesis, that has the sun and moon set in it, and vast waters above it? Like the biblical world that shows no sign of knowledge that the earth revolves about the sun? I don’t think so.
But you want to talk resurrection. As you know, the only accounts we have are the very discrepant tales in the four gospels, plus a bit in Acts and in 1st Corinthians. But these accounts differ so much that we cannot take them seriously.
We find the same problem in the discrepancies between Luke and Matthew, for example, that we find in the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew. They are two quite different stories, telling us about a resurrection, but presenting the events in very incompatible ways. Nothing really historical about either one, and comparing them with the accounts in John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians, the problems only deepen. And of course Mark originally had no post-resurrection stories at all — just women who find an empty tomb, meet someone there, and run away in fright, too afraid to talk.
November 22, 2007 at 1:42 pm
You’ve totally misunderstood what Genesis says.
Here are a few scientific facts from the Bible:
-The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).
-Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22).
-Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7).
-Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).
-Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).
-Light moves (Job 38:19,20).
-Air has weight (Job 28:25).
-Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
-Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).
-Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6).
-Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).
-When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).
The accounts of the resurrection don’t conflict. Do you think they all have to have the exact same info in each one? Why have more than one account if they’re exactly alike? If one contains more info than another, one could be said to have gaps, right? Take a look at http://www.carm.org/diff/table_resurrection.htm
From what you said, it sounds like you don’t believe in the resurrection. Much of the resurrection and the results can be verified from ancient secular writers.
When the disciples started preaching about Jesus having risen from the dead, why didn’t the Jews and/or Romans bring out Jesus’ dead body to immediately end all talk of Jesus’ resurrection. The purpose of crucifying Him was to end Jesus’ ministry. It seems like a pretty effective method. Why didn’t it work?
Why were the disciples, who were cowering in fear while Jesus was being crucified, filled with a desire to go out and preach after He rose from the dead? Almost all of them gave their lives. Plenty of people have died for a lie that they sincerely believed. No one has given their lives for something they know is a lie.
Entire books have been written on this topic, and you should take a look at one.
Thanks,
Bill
November 23, 2007 at 8:24 am
BillPhillips wrote:
-The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).
You are mistakenly reading science into Isaiah. What Isaiah actually says here is:
1. The earth is a circle, not a sphere. A circle is flat.
2. God sits above the circle of the earth.
3. The firmament is stretched over the earth like a tent (remember, the firmament is solid!
4. From God’s height above the circle of the earth, people appear like grasshoppers.
Now obviously NONE of this fits what we know of the earth. It is pre-scientific.
If you want to discuss more of the supposed “science” of the Bible, the others can similarly be dealt with. But my time right now is limited, so I want to go on to the resurrection.
You write:
From what you said, it sounds like you don’t believe in the resurrection. Much of the resurrection and the results can be verified from ancient secular writers.
None of it can be verified from ancient secular writers.
1. What ancient, contemporary secular writer speaks of Jesus being crucified in Jerusalem? None.
2. What ancient, contemporary secular writer speaks of Jesus being buried in the tomb of Joseph? None.
3. What ancient, contemporary secular writer speaks of a guard set at the tomb? None.
4. What ancient, contemporary secular writer speaks of witnesses to a resurrection of Jesus? None.
5. What ancient, contemporary secular writer speaks of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus? None.
6. What ancient, contemporary secular writer speaks of the ascension of Jesus? None.
You ask why Romans didn’t bring out a body when Christians began speaking about the resurrection. There are countless possible reasons for this. Jesus may never have existed at all. Christians were a tiny fraction of people, too insignificant for the attentions of the officials. Christians were preaching a non-physical resurrection. Christians themselves stole the body. The body was thrown in a common grave, as was common in crucifixion. Etc. Etc. Etc. Given that there is no evidence for the resurrection, and given that Jesus was treated as a criminal, who would give the matter any importance except those trying to propagate whatever was Christian belief in the first century?
You ask why disciples cowering in fear were filled with a desire to preach?
First, we don’t know that any of this is true. The only person from whom we have a direct account is Paul, the earliest NT writer, and there is no evidence that he ever saw Jesus during his lifetime. And all that he knew of him later seems to come from visions he claimed to have. Why did Joseph Smith continue to preach in spite of all the legal trouble it caused him? Why did Mormons hold to their beliefs after Joseph Smith was killed? People get all kinds of strange ideas and do all kinds of peculiar things for strange reasons.
The important thing is that the resurrection accounts are so discrepant they cannot successfully be harmonized, and there is no secular evidence at all for any of the resurrection story — in fact no reliable secular evidence that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed.
Of course entire books have been written on the topic, but they have all been weighed in the balance and found wanting. None are convincing, but simply attempt to twist the evidence to support whatever the writer’s personal belief happens to be.
When the disciples started preaching about Jesus having risen from the dead, why didn’t the Jews and/or Romans bring out Jesus’ dead body to immediately end all talk of Jesus’ resurrection. The purpose of crucifying Him was to end Jesus’ ministry. It seems like a pretty effective method. Why didn’t it work?
Why were the disciples, who were cowering in fear while Jesus was being crucified, filled with a desire to go out and preach after He rose from the dead? Almost all of them gave their lives. Plenty of people have died for a lie that they sincerely believed. No one has given their lives for something they know is a lie.
November 23, 2007 at 4:38 pm
billphillips said:
“You’ve totally misunderstood what Genesis says.”
I would like you to tell me precisely, in your view, what the Creation account of Genesis says. And then we shall look at it, and see if that is really what it says, or whether you are mixing in matters external to Genesis.
November 28, 2007 at 8:53 am
Hokku,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you; I’ve been out of town.
Regarding your question about what Genesis says, it says there was a canopy of water above the earth in the atmosphere.
If you don’t even know for sure whether Jesus exists, I guess even discussing His resurrection is a waste of time. Anyone who has set out to disprove it has come to believe it to be true.
Thanks for the discussion.
Bill
November 28, 2007 at 9:33 am
BillPhillips wrote:
“Regarding your question about what Genesis says, it says there was a canopy of water above the earth in the atmosphere.”
I am going to ask you to be very honest. Does it really say that? No. It says nothing about vapor. It says nothing about a canopy. Where then does your vapor canopy come from?
It comes from Isaac Newton Vail, who first came up with the notion of a vapor canopy in a booklet written in 1874. That is considerably later than Genesis. What Genesis actually says is that there was a firmament, a “raqia” in Hebrew — which separated the waters above the firmament from the waters below. No vapor, no canopy. What is happening here is that you are reading modern Creationist theories, popularized in fundamentalist books after Vail, that use the concept taken from Vail — such as The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb & Morris.
Now I am going to ask you to be honest about the second matter as well.
You wrote:
“If you don’t even know for sure whether Jesus exists, I guess even discussing His resurrection is a waste of time. Anyone who has set out to disprove it has come to believe it to be true.”
Your statement is simply and verifiably wrong. There are whole books written by people who have studied the existence or nonexistence of a biblical Jesus thoroughly and have come to the conclusion that he did not exist. That is easy for anyone to check.
It would seem to me to be a fundamental question of interest to all Christians. Did the Jesus described in the Bible really exist? If he did not, of course questions about resurrection are purely academic. If he did, all kinds of interesting questions are raised about why the Bible is so dotted with significant discrepancies in reporting what is supposed to be his life, and that leads to important insights into the nature of the Biblical documents.
So it is not a pointless exercise, because it tells us a great deal about the Bible, and shows clearly, in my view, that it is a fallible and very human collection of edited and revised documents.
November 28, 2007 at 11:09 am
Hokku,
It’s very simple to understand the concept of a canopy of water from Genesis 1:6-8. There was water on the earth, air above the earth, and water above the sky (NIV) or heaven (KJV). The KJV is from 1611, and if you read it you understand this idea clearly, regardless of what some guy from 200 years later says.
Jesus is mentioned by so many ancient writers and historians that it’s a joke to think he doesn’t exist. No reputable scholar denies Jesus’ existence. If you want to do that, you’re in fantasy land.
We’ve barely scratched the surface on so many topics, and it’s evident we could spend a very long time talking. The question is whether it’s worth our time. We can’t even agree on the most basic things.
One thing I would like to leave you with is that you’re going to give an account of every thought word and deed on Judgment Day, whether you believe it or not. All liars will have their part in the lake of fire (Rev 21:8).
I’ll let you have the last word.
Thanks,
Bill
November 28, 2007 at 12:05 pm
It’s very simple to understand the concept of a canopy of water from Genesis 1:6-8. There was water on the earth, air above the earth, and water above the sky (NIV) or heaven (KJV). The KJV is from 1611, and if you read it you understand this idea clearly, regardless of what some guy from 200 years later says.
Lets go back to 1611 and the KJV, which says that the “firmament” separated the waters above it from the waters below it. A firmament is, obviously, “firm” — solid. That is also the meaning of the terms used in the Septuagint, the Bible of the early church, and in the Latin Vulgate. So what Genesis presents is a solid sky that separated the watery abyss (Heb. “tehom”) into two parts, waters below and waters above a solid sky.
Now obviously the sky is not solid. And we know that there is not a vast reservoir of water above a solid sky or firmament. So it is all simply wrong. There was and is no “canopy,” as we know from space exploration, which neither had to punch a hole through a solid sky nor send a rocket through a vast reservoir of waters “above the firmament.”
You also wrote:
“Jesus is mentioned by so many ancient writers and historians that it’s a joke to think he doesn’t exist.”
By whom? What writer contemporary to Jesus unquestionably mentions him? Where outside the NT do we find him mentioned by contemporary secular historians? Where is all this vast evidence you keep mentioning? Can you cite it and exactly what was said in the earliest of these?
You keep making broad statements, but so far you have not provided the slightest evidence to back them up. Can you do so?
November 29, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hokku,
Not to be a jerk, but are you being intentionally dense to bait me into continuing to talk, or do you really not get this? This is very simple to understand. Read it carefully, especially verse 8a. I can give you the Hebrew words and definitions for firmament and heaven if you really want, but it seems simple enough in English.
Genesis 1:6-8:
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
fir·ma·ment /ˈfɜrməmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fur-muh-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun the vault of heaven; sky. (Dictionary.com)
The following is taken from: http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/jewish-tradition.htm You should take a look at it.
Other extra-biblical, non-Christian, authors who wrote about Jesus include: Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Josephus.
Bill
February 16, 2008 at 6:43 pm
a you idiot your an idiot for saying such stupidids about the bible like that your gona die for sure
February 17, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Check out what Jesus said in John 3:3, 3:18, 3:36, 14:6, and Luke 13:5.
Also, take a look at 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Revelation 21:8.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure this stuff out. You just have to read the Bible.
Bill
February 18, 2008 at 9:53 am
Bill,
After 39 years, I am trying to build a relationship with God. One month ago, I was visited by a Chinese mother and young daughter. I thought they were at the wrong apartment so I opened the door. They read literature and since then I have invited them three times in my home for study. The last meeting they gave me a bible and sure enough Jehovah was used. It was never brought up before in any of the conversations or bible readings. I was naive to think that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not in Singapore. I do remember them in my younger days as those people who would not take no for an answer. I was at a very low time in my life when these folks contacted me so I do appreciate that they cared enough to be the only ones to offer any religion. I looked at this as a sign that I was on the correct path towards becoming a better person and understanding God. I was reading Deepak Chopra and turning towards spirituality when the Jehovah’s Witnesses contacted me. To this day I have never disclosed my personal issues with anyone so they have no idea the impact they had made by just showing up at the right place and time in my life. Now, I am worried in what they are teaching is not correct. I am trying to educate myself by doing research but it is very frustrating. It seems that many religions that believe in Jesus and God are pointing the fingers as to what the bible really is saying and who is correct. When this happens I want to stop and turn my back again on religion. As a young child I remember watching people go to church all dressed up and it was to impress others in the community. They said their prayers and then were forgiven for their sins. Come Monday they were back to being terrible people but on Sunday all was fine. I have tried to watch Sunday television shows on religion but again I find this irritating and fake. There are at least 12 main religions here in Singapore from Hindu, Jainism and Taoism. What is the best way to start understanding the bible besides just reading the pages on my own? I don’t think I am grasping the full meaning by myself. Is the belief by Jehovah’s Witnesses really incorrect?
February 18, 2008 at 10:48 am
Suzan,
Thanks for your comment.
I know the Bible is true. There is a lot of evidence from prophecies about Jesus coming true to archaelogical findings. If you’re doubting the Bible, I have a short writing about the trustworthiness of the Bible on one of the tabs at the top.
Many religions believe the Bible is true or valuable, but all but one add other writings to it. Jews only believe the Old Testament, but they have the Talmud, which some consider more important than the Bible. Catholics say tradition and what the pope says is just as valuable as the Bible. Mormons add 3 extra books of scripture to the Bible. Muslims think the Bible is mostly corrupt, and add the Koran. Jehovah’s Witnesses say they can’t understand the Bible without the aid of the writings of the Watchtower. Christians are the only ones who say the Bible is the only thing that is from God, and everything else is fine as long as it agrees with the Bible. If it disagrees, we know it’s wrong.
I’m sorry for the Christian hypocrites you’ve run into, but while men will let you down, Jesus never will. Studying the Bible can be hard work, but it pays off.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong. It can be easily proven with a reliable Bible, and even with their own NWT. What they do is take one verse or a few verses and use it to prove their point. The problem is they take the verse out of context, or ignore verses that explain it, and make an entire doctrine out of it. I would love to answer any specific questions you have.
Let me recommend a way to learn the Bible that isn’t just reading it through. Go to this website: http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm and read through it. It starts out with Christian doctrines, and why we believe what we do. You can look up Jehovah’s Witness stuff on that site, too. I can tell you the author is correct, but we can never sit back and swallow everything someone says. We verify it with the Bible, and this would be a good way for you to start really learning the Bible. Look up the verses he uses, and read them in context.
The most important thing is to make sure you’re born again. Jesus said no one can go to heaven unless they’re born again (John 3:3). Do you know what “born again” means? Are you born again?
Bill
February 19, 2008 at 5:39 am
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do not know what born again means. I will go to the website you recommended and begin there.
March 8, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Maybe some one should do a little research about the actual beginnings of Christianity and the Bible, and the God and Jesus myths. Christianity, as we almost know it today, had a beginning. It was not 6,000 years ago; it was more like 1,700 years ago.
Constantine the Great had a very big hand in it. His buddy Eusebius was responsible for picking what was to be included in the first bibles produced with both OT and NT combined.
I have found that people can spout verses at each other till the cows come home and it makes not one bit of difference. All of their basic premises are probably wrong. Very large chance that it’s man made.
Did secular writers speak of Jesus in his time? Jesus was raising people from the dead, curing leprosy and other fatal diseases feeding hundreds with a loaf of bread, and so on. Was this not important enough for writers outside the faith?
Eusebius and Constantine were responsible for the organizing and widespread dissemination of their own, and early writers views of Christianity and dogma. It was aided by the early ‘Roman Catholic’ church, which by the way soon started destroying other writing that they considered “heretical.” Of course the church fought tooth and nail among themselves for the next hundred or so years to establish the Official Canon.
Somehow that doesn’t sound like God directed Scripture to me. Many of the Scriptures contradict each other and, although Paul’s invention of Original Sin was brilliant, there is too much about the Bible that is just flat out wrong. People put way to much faith in modern church leaders; they need to investigate. Question everything you think you know.
It took many years for the Catholic Church, which was all we had at the time, to come up with the script for Christians to follow, and of course when Luther and others came along, they had to write a new script for Protestants.
The concept of Trinity was made up by early church fathers; it was never a ‘Word of God’ thing. Eusebius tinkered with early writings. People and churches have for 1700 years been applying their own personal translation to the Christian Scriptures.
If there was a God, who entered in man’s history rather belatedly by the way, then I think his adulation manual would not seem so human. It’ too much like a fairy tale—nice, but you can tell it never happened.
The Bible, and therefore Christianity have a big reputation to live up to. It’s supposed to be the Word of God, which inherently means it’s inerrant. If you prove one thing is wrong in the Bible, you’ve proved it all wrong. The Flood never happened….