The Word: Mighty, or Almighty?

Jehovah's Witnesses struggle with the idea of one God in three person's. Who doesn’t? How do they resolve this to their own satisfaction?

They reason:

'The statement “the Word was with God” indicates that two separate persons are discussed in the verse. It is not possible for the Word to be “with God” and at the same time be God Almighty. The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. John 1:18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.” However, people did see the Word, Jesus, for John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.”

Is there a difference between 'God' and 'Almighty God,' as they insist? If 'no man has seen God at any time' how is it possible for Jesus to be seen and be God?

Revelation 3:14

I ended my last post without addressing the question, ‘Is the NWT accurate and reliable when it translates Revelation 3:14, 'the beginning of the creation by God'?’ I want to address that here and demonstrate the ‘Mighty’ and Almighty’ are not only not biblical categories but the distinction doesn’t make sense in light of what Revelation says about Jesus.

‘To the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: ‘These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.’’ Revelation 3:14 NWT

‘And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.’’ Revelation 3:14 ESV

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach ‘the beginning of the creation by God’ means the first thing to be created, making Jesus a creature. The New World mistranslation inserts ‘by’ where the Greek gives ‘of’, making the verse bend to Watch Tower eisegesis. ‘By God’ makes God the agent of creation, and Christ the first created. ‘Of God’ makes Christ the creator, as clearly taught in John’s gospel:

‘All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.’ John 1:3 NWT

Even the New World Translation confesses, ‘apart from him not even one thing came into existence.’

Two Gods, one Mighty, one Almighty

Is Jesus ‘Mighty’ and is the Father ‘Almighty’?

Doug Harris explains:

‘The Watchtower argues that because the first ‘God’ in John 1:1 is preceded by the Greek definite article ‘the’ it must have a big ‘G’ and refer to Jehovah. However the second ‘god’ does not have the definite article and so is translated ‘a god’, and refers to the ‘little god’, Jesus.

‘What most Jehovah’s Witnesses have not seen, however, is that in John 1:18 there is no definite

article connected with the first theontranslated ‘God’, but the second theosis followed by the definite article ‘the one’ and yet it is translated ‘god’. Add to this the meaning of the term ‘only-begotten’ (see p.82) and this verse says no man has ever seen God but now God the unique Son, clothed in flesh, reveals God in a way that can be seen by men..

‘The Society also uses an argument that speaks of Jesus being ‘with’ God and then asks ‘how can He also be God?’ This does not stand the test of comparing Scripture with Scripture.

‘The Father is God, and Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus the Word was with God, but that does not make Him any less part of the Godhead. To check this out look at Heb.1:3.’

The text in John 1:18 reads:

‘ No man has seen God at anytime, the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained him.’ John 1:18 NWT

‘No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.’ John 1:18 ESV

The word translated ‘explained’ in the NWT, and ‘made him known,’ in the ESV is exēgēsato which translates, ‘declared.’ Jesus declaration of God amounts to much more than an explanation. He said to Philip, ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’ ESV.

The NWT adds ‘also’ making it sound as though Jesus is saying, ‘In addition to seeing me you have seen the Father,’ but the text goes on to say, ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in me’ ESV. Again, the NWT adds to the text, ‘I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me.’ This makes it sound like unity of purpose, but Jesus is God the Son, making them unified in essence, the Trinity doctrine.

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...

Bridge of Reason

Search This Blog