Jehovah`s Witness/Jesus created?
17 Jesus said to her, Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
We see Jesus has a God
12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
Still he has a God
Can you please explain to me why Jesus as God (But then has a God??)
Hello again, Dave. I hope you are well.
This question is one that JWs like to ask as a "stumper" question, which it is not. Not even close. It would be helpful if they would remember that Christ, as a man, had a FULLY human nature, and a FULLY divine nature, at the same time.
Basically, the JW denial of the Trinity doctrine, consists largely of verses that do NOT say what they want to imply. It consists of verses where they IMPOSE an interpretation ("If Jesus is God, then how can this be....etc, etc?), rather than any statements where Jesus denied being God. On the other hand, our position is strong, because it has actual Scriptures that we can point to.
For example, I found it interesting that you referred to a reference in John 20:17, when just 11 verses later, we have a clear example of Jesus being called "God" by Thomas. Try as JWs might, they simply cannot wiggle out of that one.
So, let's compare....By JW logic, Jesus "has a God", so therefore, cannot BE God in nature. So, WHO is Jesus' God, then? Obviously, that would be the Father, correct?
Okay, but now we have a problem. Just 11 verses later, we see that Thomas HAS a God, as well. WHO is Thomas' God? Well, that answer is simple....
John 20:28- "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
Try as they might, they cannot escape the simple fact that the verse CLEARLY says Thomas was talking TO JESUS, and calls Him "My Lord and my God". In Greek, this is "the Lord of me, and THE God of me". So, no doubt about Who Thomas's God was...It was Jesus. He said so himself.
Now, if we try to understand John 20:17 in an anti-Trinitarian manner, as JWs do, we are left with some VERY disturbing conclusions:
1. Thomas and Jesus have a different God.
2. The God of Jesus, is NOT the God of Thomas, for Thomas has stated who "the God of me" is...Jesus.
3. Thomas was acknowledging some lesser "god", as HIS God, ruling out all others by the use of the definite article "the", and therefore, telling us that the Father is not his God.
Now, if Jesus is Thomas' God (as Thomas clearly said He is), and if Jesus is not God Himself, then Thomas has a God that is not really God. So, the answer to the above questions (assuming Jesus is not God), would be that Thomas DID have a different God than Jesus.
But wait...that contradicts the other verse in question, verse 17. For in THAT verse, Jesus acknowledged (speaking to His disciples, Thomas included), that they DID have the same God. He uttered the phrase "my God and your God", indicating that the Father was both the God of Christ, AND the God of the disciples, including Thomas.
Now, either we can look at this in the typical JW manner of only causing MORE problems and clearing up NONE of the problems associated with these 2 passages, OR, we can just accept the Biblical testimony that Jesus, as a fully human man in the flesh, regarded the Father in heaven as His God, while still being of the same nature of God Himself.
That's the all-too-often result of accepting JW interpretations of these passages of Scripture....They only create new problems, as illustrated above, and solve NONE. When the fact is, the Bible reveals Jesus to be fully God in His divinity, and fully man in His humanity. That one fact alone, clears up every single objection to the Trinity doctrine, that JWs attempt to raise.
Now, I do not believe that Thomas and Jesus had a different God. I believe there is a much better answer, and is in line with the Scriptures in Philippians 2:5-11, which show Jesus emptying Himself of His rights as God, and humbling Himself by coming to earth to suffer the death of the cross. In this context, Jesus still possessed His NATURE as God, but willingly took upon the form of humanity. He was fully human, so it is naturally to be expected that He would refer to His Father in Heaven, as His God.
Notice also that Jesus used a type of language here, that differentiates His relationship to the Father as God, from OUR relationship to the Father as God. Jesus did not say..."I am ascending to our God", but "to my God, and your God." I believe this is significant. He seems to be indicating His own relationship the Father as being unique from ours. He is the ONLY begotten Son of God, while we are ADOPTED sons of God.
And there is another problem here...The overwhelming majority of JWs have no clue what the Trinity doctrine really teaches. This can be proven by just reading any of Rando's comments on it, and also by watching all these other JWs wasting their time, trying to "prove" that Jesus and the Father are not the same Person, when NO Trinitarian believes that they are.
The fact is, the Trinity does, and always has, taught that Jesus is NOT the Father, but is a distinct Person. Any other believe that deviates from that fact, is not Trinitarian. Rando himself has never grasped the difference between Trinitarian teaching and Modalism. That is why he has never written ANYTHING that presents the true Trinity doctrine. And other JWs applaud him for his misrepresentations, because they don't know the difference either. And it is no big deal to them if he lies....as long as he's speaking against the Trinity, who cares if he tells the truth about it or not?
But the point is, if they are distinct Persons, then it would be expected that Jesus would acknowledge the Father as His God. The Father also calls Jesus "God" in Hebrews 1:8, without diminishing His own Deity in any way.
Remember one thing, Dave....Always understand and interpret less clear verses, in light of CLEAR ones. John 20:28 has a CLEAR statement that Jesus is Thomas' God. John 20:17 does NOT deny that Jesus is God...it merely shows Him acknowledging the Father as His God. It does nothing to deny His OWN nature as God. That is an interpretation that must be IMPOSED into the verse, and not drawn out of it.
JWs do just the opposite, unfortunately. They attempt to explain away Thomas' words in verse 28, by His words in verse 17, which is the opposite approach from the way they SHOULD be doing it.
In regards to verse 28, JWs say...."Well, Jesus was like a god to Thomas", OR, "This was an emotional exclamation of surprise, like 'Oh, my God!" (Ridiculous!) Then, they will say something like...."Whatever John 20:28 means, it cannot mean that Jesus is God, because Jesus HAD a God in verse 17".
See what I mean? What they SHOULD say, is "Whatever John 20:17 means, it cannot mean that Jesus isn't God, because verse 28 clearly says that He is!"
Always go with the clear verse, and harmonize the less-clear one with it. Not the other way around. That is how you get into doctrinal heresy.
It is actually quite amusing to watch JWs try to explain away the clear statement in John 20:28. They will interpret it in every way, except for what it SAYS.
But their argument is self-defeating, because if Jehovah is the only true God (and He is), then Jesus CANNOT possibly be Thomas' God, UNLESS Jesus is also the only true God. Otherwise, Thomas is worshiping a false God. But we know that is not the case, for verse 17 acknowledges that Thomas served the same God as Jesus. But if the JW interpretation is accepted, then Thomas would be serving a different God.
Bottom line....Christ had both a fully human, and a fully divine nature. In His human nature, He submitted to the Father, and acknowledged Him as God. In His divine nature, He is God and possesses the attributes and nature of God. That is why the JW position leaves them having to re-translate and explain away the passages of Scripture that teach Jesus is God, while the Trinitarians are able to harmonize BOTH sets of Scriptures.
The correct view will NEVER cause the Bible to contradict itself. That's a good rule to remember.