I am a JW, why should I consider becoming a C

[Mike]

If completely avoiding the point, and still being wrong is fun then I am glad you enjoyed yourself.

happyjoy, honestly I didn't read your response to me to the last word. I thought for some reason, you were simply correcting me in my grammar. I did think (at the time) that it was an odd place to insert this type of correction.

Okay, so in response to the true meaning of your response. My response to Mohrb was not intended to be aggressive. I wasn't feeling that way when I wrote it. I was just stating a belief of mine that there are core beliefs of "Christianity" that JW's sadly reject. I hold that these differences are enough, as I said, to separate us. I respect mohrb's opinion and the way he represents his thoughts. He is a convicted JW who differs in my opinion of the exclusion. We've shared much since he's joined on the board and in PM's.

You are more difficult to understand - more of a "Truth is defined by each individual" type of person. I may be wrong, Mrhrb may be wrong, or we both could be wrong. But I don't believe the Truth is defined by me, but by God. He owns the Truth. He IS the Truth. We seek that one Truth. It would appear that you don't believe there is one Truth and reject anyone who does...repeatedly...over and over and over throughout these boards.

So, to clarify, no I don't believe Christianity is reserved for me. I believe it is reserved for those who subject themselves to His Truth and follow Jesus where ever He leads.

 

[westtexas]

Nick, the differences between the JW's and your ____ (you fill in the blank denomination) are not quite as simple as just whether one denomination is monotheistic or trinitarian. I'll explain some of them the way I see them and Mohrb can correct me if I am in error anywhere. JW's believe Jesus was the first created object, JW's deny the deity of Jesus Christ, JW's also deny the physical resurrection of our Lord. Scripture says "and if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty-1 Cor. 15:14 NKJV". These are just a few of the differences but they are not minor differences. I'll let Mohrb correct me if any of this is incorrect.

God bless, Westtexas

 

[Nick]

Nick, the differences between the JW's and your ____ (you fill in the blank denomination) are not quite as simple as just whether one denomination is monotheistic or trinitarian. I'll explain some of them the way I see them and Mohrb can correct me if I am in error anywhere. JW's believe Jesus was the first created object, JW's deny the deity of Jesus Christ, JW's also deny the physical resurrection of our Lord. Scripture says "and if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty-1 Cor. 15:14 NKJV". These are just a few of the differences but they are not minor differences. I'll let Mohrb correct me if any of this is incorrect.

God bless, Westtexas

I agree, and that's the way I see it presently, although I was focusing more on a simplistic monotheistic Vs trinitarian point of view.

 

[Mohrb]

most men accoriding to josephus died during the scouring by the cat of nine tails, jesus didnt. that alone should tell that he was more then a man. would you not defend yourself if you are accused? Does it not say that he laid aside his diety to become a man. he humbled himself.

JWs agree that Jesus was more than "just a human." That doesn't automatically mean he was God himself. Keep in mind two others were executed the same way right next to Jesus. Were they God too in your opinion? What translation says that he "laid aside his diety?" Everyone I see says that he "became a little less than the angels" ... An angel could "become less than the angels" and become a human. However, the trinitarian viewpoint that Jesus was 100% human and finite, while simultaneously being 100% God and infinite is a complete contradiction of terms. If any part of a person is infinite, that person can not be considered finite.

Well, the Christian Church was established long before Russell came along in the 1870's. That said, I would say that we could lay claim to the name "Christianity"

Assuming you aren't catholic... the catholic church has been around longer than any other modern day Christian denomination. If they believe that Mary should be prayed to and hailed as "Mother of God" and you don't... should they call you non-Christian? After all, their church was founded first, and there are likely more catholics than your denomination. Does that inherently make their interpretation of the original words more valid than yours or mine?

Going back further to the council of Nicaea, not everyone believed that Jesus was divine. Many believed that Jesus being the Son of God didn't make Jesus God as well... however, these people were the minority and kicked out by the majority (Many being excommunicated or executed). Even the ones who believed that Jesus was just as much of a God as his Father... they didn't teach that the two were one being. Rather, the council of Nicaea stated that "kind begets kind. Just as a man begets man, God can not beget anything but God." ... Nicaea didn't suggest a trinity at all... but polytheism. The "Trinity" wasn't suggested until the council of Constantinople some decades later. This shows that monotheism was around even before the catholic church was unified under Constantine (however, the monotheist interpretation was silenced for centuries thereafter because the church would kill anyone with the nerve to read the bible themselves... let alone question the teaching of the catholic church).

... And, most importantly, even earlier... Jesus himself taught that his Father alone was the True God, and that he was sent by his Father. Jesus stated that his Father alone should be worshiped, that his Father is greater than him, and that he came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father, his God.

No matter what denomination of Christianity there is, no group should have the right to call Christ's teachings "non-Christian." If you heard Jesus himself say "The Father is greater than I" ... would you really have the courage to call him a liar (while simultaneously calling him God)?

 

[Mohrb]

As deity without beginning or end?

Do you deny that Jesus was the "Begotten" "Son" of God? Would you care to explain how someone without a beginning can be not only a "Son" ... but specifically a Son that was "begotten?"

[quote:hl8bud9e]Kinda "ticky-tac", but I can't resist. I believe mine is correct, and yours is wrong. Your comma is not appropriate as you do not have two complete sentences joined by a conjunction. If you were to continue ", and I have reason to...", then you have two sentences joined by a conjunction, and a comma is required. Your comma makes this a grammatically incorrect sentence.

This was fun. Now,

If completely avoiding the point, and still being wrong is fun then I am glad you enjoyed yourself.[/quote:hl8bud9e]

It seems like the only main difference you suggested was saying "I" instead of "we" and "Myself" instead of "ourselves." ... Grammatically, one can speak for a group. The first person plural is an acceptable subject. But, no one likes grammar Nazis. Grammar socialism is OK from time to time, but it's just not OK to treat grammar Jews so unfairly.

(now that I think about it, I really like the expression "grammar Jews"... it's facetiously, socially and linguistically :eyebrow )

 

[Mohrb]

Mohrb, I need you to explain something to me.Above you see the interlinear translation that I own as well as the NWT translation and then your explanation of ho logos.

...

Kai theos en ho logos
and God was the Word----------Kingdom Interlinear Translation 1985 edition

My Kingdom Interlinear translations seem to be in the car (I can't remember what editions they are, but I've got the purple cover and the green cover). I also have the Diaglott up here, but it has "a god" under theos. However, I usually use the following web site to research the greek:
http://www.scripture4all.org/

The reason being is that it gives the each word in roman characters, as well as greek characters (thus, it's easier to look up in a greek>english dictionary to double check the translation). Also, this site gives the part of speech under each word. Here's John 1 on the site:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/joh1.pdf


As far, as why you would see "god" under theos in the interlinear portion, yet see it translated as "a god" ... for that, I have to ask: Do you speak any other languages? Different languages will use different sentence structure and rules... so quite often the literal translation makes no sense. First example off the top of my head is in german... the Rammstein song "Du hast." Everyone knows the chorus:

Du
Du hast
Du hast mich
Du hast mich gefragt
Und ich hab' nichts gesagt.

People know that "Du hast mich" means "You hate me" ... "Du" means "you" "hast" is the second person singular form of "hassen"(to hate), "Mich" means "me."

However, people don't realize that this song is actually about a wedding. "Du hast mich" may mean "you hate me" ... but add the word "gefragt" to the end, and it becomes "You asked me" (literally: "you have me asked"... "hast" being the second person singular form of "haben" ... and when you say something in the past tense in german, you use the conjugated form of "haven" where the word would go in english, and stick that word at the end of the sentence "gefragt")

Literally, the rest of the chorus is "You have me asked, and I have nothing said." ... however, properly translated into english sentence structure, it would be "you asked me and I said nothing." This is very different than the "english version" of the song where it's presented as "you hate me to say and I did not obey." (a "version" and a "translation" are NOT the same thing.)

So, why do I bring up Rammstein when talking about the bible? To illustrate the difference in sentence structure.

Yes, a proper translation for "theos" is "god." If it's modified with a definite article such as in the prior section of John 1:1 that the word was with "ton theon" ... "Ton" isn't translated as "the" ... however, it modifies "theos" into a specifically definite article, instead of the assumed indefinite article. Greek and english are opposite, in that regard. In English "God" is definite... unless modified by an INdefinite article "a." In greek, "theos" is INdefinite... unless modified by a definite article (such as "ho" or "ton").

As far as why the KIT didn't appropriately put "a god" under an anarthrous form of "theos" ("Anarthrous" meaning "not having a definite article")... I dunno. I don't define my faith by their ability or inability to notate the steps of translation.

The reason I bring up "Scriptures4all" is because this site brings up another very important note. Notice that when it says the word was with God... "God" is accusative. i.e. the word was with a secondary subject... specifically God. However, in the last section where "theos en ho logos" ... "theos" is not only anarthrous... but nominative!

I assume everyone understands the qualitative implications of nominative predicate nouns?

It would be like someone saying "Bob visited the president, and when Bob came back, he was presidential."

... or "Tom has been spending too much time talking to his boss; he's been bossy all week!"

Anywho, to answer your question: They must have notated the literal meaning of that word -by itself-. However, the context of the -whole sentence- is what's important.

yo.

 

[Mohrb]

See this is where it gets tricky. And I admit I don’t really have many of the answers. But what I was getting at is that if I believe that a core doctrine of a Christian is that they believe in the trinity, then I’m sure you can understand why I thought JW’s were not Christians. Notice I said ‘thought’ not ‘think’. To be honest, I’m just not sure at the moment. I need to do a lot more thinking about this.

I see. Thank you. :yes

OK, lets stick to the argument that Jesus ‘was God (a Trinitarian belief), but when He was on earth as jesus, consider this: He was both fully man AND fully God. If one is man, then they are capable of death - Jesus was God in the flesh. But, He had the power to do miracles, such as healing the sick, and obviously rise from the dead.

Again... how can someone be "fully" infinite God... while being "fully" finite man? It's mutually incompatible. Keep in mind, many humans have performed miracles by the power of God. Especially that Moses feller.

It was only that He was God’s son, and I believe part of the trinity Godhead that He could possibly live a sinless like so that our sins may be paid for.

Obviously a human who's inherited, and already been corrupted by, sin couldn't live a sinless life. However, do you think Adam and Eve COULDN'T have obeyed God? Remember how satan challenged God over Job? He insinuated that people only serve God out of selfishness... "skin on behalf of skin"... that people only serve God to save themselves or win his favor so that they personally benefit. And that no one would stay loyal if it weren't for God's blessings in return. God disagreed. And Job proved God right. Also, keep in mind, that not all angels have fallen. Obviously some life in creation (that is not God himself) has been able to remain faithful. It's only impossible for us because by the time we're conceived, we've already been corrupted by sin.

unlike Muslims or Hindus, JW’s use the Bible (perhaps an incorrect translation, but still the Bible) and so it comes down more to accusing another’s interpretation of the Bible to be inferior to your own.

Again, thank you. I agree that we certainly disagree on some core doctrines. But, we both have reasoning for our beliefs. Hopefully we can both respect that.

I need to study this more, and I encourage you to do so as well.

 

[Mohrb]

I'll explain some of them the way I see them and Mohrb can correct me if I am in error anywhere. JW's believe Jesus was the first created object, JW's deny the deity of Jesus Christ, JW's also deny the physical resurrection of our Lord.

We believe Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Colossians 1:13)... the first creation of God, thus he was begotten. And then the rest of creation was done "through" Jesus (1 Corinthians 8:6). We explain this as God being the designer... the architect of the universe, while Jesus is the master craftsman. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God (and is not the same being as his Father). We definitely do believe that Jesus was physically resurrected... however, we believe that Jesus gave his very soul for us (Matthew 20:28 and 27:50)... not just a temporary body that he took up only to sacrifice. Then, his Father physically resurrected him. We don't believe that "the miracle of the resurrection" was simply Jesus coming back for his corpse... but the Father restoring his son's soul to life. He may have been restored into his physical body, and then made into a spiritual creature... or, he may have been resurrected directly to his pre-human spiritual form. Either way, he was walking around with the wounds that were previously fatal... so obviously he was no longer limited by a normal human body. (Most of Christianity agrees that he was raised as immortal... they just insist that it was as an "immortal human... who was capable of traveling from earth to heaven... which is sort of the definition of "not a finite human.")

 

[Nick]

We believe Jesus is the firstborn of creation

ONce again I redirect you to the beginning of John 1.

Again... how can someone be "fully" infinite God... while being "fully" finite man? It's mutually incompatible. Keep in mind, many humans have performed miracles by the power of God. Especially that Moses feller.

I have some study notes on this, which I will find tomorrow and get back to you.

Obviously a human who's inherited, and already been corrupted by, sin couldn't live a sinless life. However, do you think Adam and Eve COULDN'T have obeyed God? Remember how satan challenged God over Job? He insinuated that people only serve God out of selfishness... "skin on behalf of skin"... that people only serve God to save themselves or win his favor so that they personally benefit. And that no one would stay loyal if it weren't for God's blessings in return. God disagreed. And Job proved God right. Also, keep in mind, that not all angels have fallen. Obviously some life in creation (that is not God himself) has been able to remain faithful. It's only impossible for us because by the time we're conceived, we've already been corrupted by sin.

Every human is corrupted by sin from the start - we all fall short of the glory of God. Adam and Eve were the first to sin, and Satan would have tempted someone else eventually. And then God kicked man out of the Garden and now we are corrupted. I'm not sure of the relevance of your point about Job and why we worship God. I agree, but I'm not sure of its relevance.

 

[happyjoy]

If completely avoiding the point, and still being wrong is fun then I am glad you enjoyed yourself.

happyjoy, honestly I didn't read your response to me to the last word. I thought for some reason, you were simply correcting me in my grammar. I did think (at the time) that it was an odd place to insert this type of correction.

Okay, so in response to the true meaning of your response. My response to Mohrb was not intended to be aggressive. I wasn't feeling that way when I wrote it. I was just stating a belief of mine that there are core beliefs of "Christianity" that JW's sadly reject. I hold that these differences are enough, as I said, to separate us. I respect mohrb's opinion and the way he represents his thoughts. He is a convicted JW who differs in my opinion of the exclusion. We've shared much since he's joined on the board and in PM's.

You are more difficult to understand - more of a "Truth is defined by each individual" type of person. I may be wrong, Mrhrb may be wrong, or we both could be wrong. But I don't believe the Truth is defined by me, but by God. He owns the Truth. He IS the Truth. We seek that one Truth. It would appear that you don't believe there is one Truth and reject anyone who does...repeatedly...over and over and over throughout these boards.

So, to clarify, no I don't believe Christianity is reserved for me. I believe it is reserved for those who subject themselves to His Truth and follow Jesus where ever He leads.

I respect your reply. I would add that I have had a very hard time figuring out what the truth is. I have sort of come to a tentative conclusion pretty much as you describe it. That truth is individual, not universal.

 

[Mike]

JWs agree that Jesus was more than "just a human." That doesn't automatically mean he was God himself. Keep in mind two others were executed the same way right next to Jesus. Were they God too in your opinion? What translation says that he "laid aside his diety?" Everyone I see says that he "became a little less than the angels" ... An angel could "become less than the angels" and become a human. However, the trinitarian viewpoint that Jesus was 100% human and finite, while simultaneously being 100% God and infinite is a complete contradiction of terms. If any part of a person is infinite, that person can not be considered finite.

The nature of God is something that we can not grasp fully. He is beyond our understanding completely, but you know we could cite verses to support our doctrine which includes the Trinity (not by name), Jesus being God and Jesus being fully God & fully flesh.

This is the crux of the matter with our differentiation. You said although Jesus was more than just human, He is not God. <--- Right there!! Mohrb, I'm having a hard time understanding how or why you would call yourself a "Christian" when you don't believe Christ is God.

Assuming you aren't catholic... the catholic church has been around longer than any other modern day Christian denomination. If they believe that Mary should be prayed to and hailed as "Mother of God" and you don't... should they call you non-Christian? After all, their church was founded first, and there are likely more catholics than your denomination. Does that inherently make their interpretation of the original words more valid than yours or mine?

I can't speak for others here, but I believe our reformed churches were the growth from the Catholic Church. They have the same core tenets that we do. The Apostles Creed is almost precisely the same. And to correct you on their behalf, I believe they see Mary as intervening on their behalf. She isn't worshiped as God is as some tend to think. I don't pray to her, because I don't see a need for a "go-between" with God. Some might believe differently than me, but I believe since the core tenets are their, they too are Christians. We are different denominations of the Christian Church that hold the same core tenets.

... And, most importantly, even earlier... Jesus himself taught that his Father alone was the True God, and that he was sent by his Father. Jesus stated that his Father alone should be worshiped, that his Father is greater than him, and that he came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father, his God.

No matter what denomination of Christianity there is, no group should have the right to call Christ's teachings "non-Christian." If you heard Jesus himself say "The Father is greater than I" ... would you really have the courage to call him a liar (while simultaneously calling him God)?

[/quote]

Jesus said those words while in the flesh as well as that if you saw Him, you've seen God. You know what we have in store to defend our belief that Jesus was and IS God. The fact that you're arguing this point tells me you see the distinct differences that I do.

 

[Free]

I'll explain some of them the way I see them and Mohrb can correct me if I am in error anywhere. JW's believe Jesus was the first created object, JW's deny the deity of Jesus Christ, JW's also deny the physical resurrection of our Lord.

We believe Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Colossians 1:13)... the first creation of God, thus he was begotten. And then the rest of creation was done "through" Jesus (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Except that the very passage in question clearly states that "all things" were made through Christ. This is also in agreement with John 1:3: All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

In both cases, the NWT clearly ignores what is being said. The only way around it is to redefine the meaning of "all things" to not actually mean "everything that has been made," or, as in the case of the NWT, add to Scripture words which are not in any manuscripts to completely change the meaning of the text: "all [other] things." In doing so, the NWT has a very obvious contradiction between John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17, not to mention between John 1:1 and 1:3:

John 1:1-3, 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. (NWT)

Col 1:16-17, 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, (NWT)

If "not even one thing came into existence" apart from Jesus, how can it be also said that Jesus was created and "all [other] things" were created through him?

Not only that, John 1:3 supports translations which state "the Word was God" and contradicts any attempt to translate the statement as "the Word was a god."

These are two very serious contradictions in the NWT.

Again... how can someone be "fully" infinite God... while being "fully" finite man? It's mutually incompatible.

Which is why it is better stated that Jesus was truly God and truly man.

That truth is individual, not universal.

That's for another topic but that can be shown to be false.

 

[Mohrb]

BTW, I usually don't pimp magazines, but on the topic of JWs... this month's Watchtower is actually -very- good. There's a fantastic illustration about when people ask "where is God?" And the article about raising children I think is very well done. Most advice parents get from anywhere consists of "use this trick to force your child to obey you" ... whereas this article tries to explain where they got some of their misbehaviors.

As much as a person can disagree with JW's interpretations on the trinity and hell and all that... this month's article should be spiritually beneficial to people of every denomination. Let me know if anyone wants help getting a copy. Otherwise if you go to jw.org, click "downloads" and drop down to "may 2010", You can download the whole thing, or individual articles in quite a few languages. (the articles I was specifically impressed with were "Where is God?" "What is God doing?" and "Keys to Family Happiness—Raising Responsible Children")

FYI.

 

[jasoncran]

hebrews states this on christ, kjv

1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of rightenous is the scepter of rightenous is the rightenous is the scepter of thy kingdom. and on vs 9 which i wont quote. adds to that.

hmm the father is calling the son God, interesting.

btw mohrb

i must ask this

if our translations are so bad an yours ok then doesnt that make the bible very corruptable despite the evidence of a little to no errors from the dead sea scrolls and the textus reciptcus.

has there been bad translations yes. but men who have sought see what the bible has actually said have tried to be honest and truthful and the best of their might the translations only have small errors and that is only from one way to look at it to another(fe vs de)


The lord is able to preserve his word and i doubt that only a select view up to the time mr. russell were the only right ones. i wont even go there about the 1914 thing that i recall. oops.

 

[westtexas]

My Kingdom Interlinear translations seem to be in the car (I can't remember what editions they are, but I've got the purple cover and the green cover). I also have the Diaglott up here, but it has "a god" under theos. However, I usually use the following web site to research the greek:
http://www.scripture4all.org/

Let's use your website then and show a few more times where the Watchtower and the NWT attempt to deny the deity of Jesus.

"The title ho theos (The God, or God), which now designates the father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus himself: Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos)"---The Watchtower, July 1 1986 pg. 31

These scriptures are taken from http://www.scripture4all.org as you suggested but are the same in your KIT.
John 20:28 Jesus is coming and Thomas says "Kai ho theos mou" or "The God of me"
Matthew 1:23 the verse we all hear so many times at Christmas, Immanual-"meth hemon ho theos" or literally- Immanual with us The God

It appears to me that the Watchtower and the NWT continue to deceive many well-meaning JW's and say Jesus is not "ho theos"-The God and that He is merely-a god

Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

Westtexas you have no idea to how close that is to the truth. its hasnt changed since i left, for the most part.

i asked a jw on something else and i told him of this dabate and how the nwt may be in error. i softened it up as i didnt want beat him up. The verse i told him that was error was jn 1:1 and that stunned him for a few seconds and he went to add that it will be worse for judgement and that i have been in the light and it will be harder on me because of that. odd since there no hell according to them. how does one die more in the physical? if that's all that hell and sheol mean?

man i cant bring myself to open up as i dont want to runoff mohrb or get ugly on this stuff.

 

[westtexas]

Jason, I personally believe in a literal, eternal Heaven and Hell but the JW's concept of hell is not as much of a concern to me as a group of people who claim the title of CHRISTian yet at the same time can deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Maybe it's just me but two concepts are totally contradictory to me.

Westtexas

 

[Mike]

Jason, I personally believe in a literal, eternal Heaven and Hell but the JW's concept of hell is not as much of a concern to me as a group of people who claim the title of CHRISTian yet at the same time can deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Maybe it's just me but two concepts are totally contradictory to me.

Westtexas

Call me a ditto-head.

JWs agree that Jesus was more than "just a human." That doesn't automatically mean he was God himself.

This is the crux of the matter with our differentiation. You said although Jesus was more than just human, He is not God. <--- Right there!! Mohrb, I'm having a hard time understanding how or why you would call yourself a "Christian" when you don't believe Christ is God.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason, I personally believe in a literal, eternal Heaven and Hell but the JW's concept of hell is not as much of a concern to me as a group of people who claim the title of CHRISTian yet at the same time can deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Maybe it's just me but two concepts are totally contradictory to me.

Westtexas

its not just you. they dont call themselves christians alot. more like the jehovah's witness and they call what they do and live and believe the "TRUTH." the kindgom hall is where they meet not the church. i cant recall that verse in zechariah or else where on that.

one is only a true jw when he or she is a baptized one. all others are feed milk. if i recall correctly. i was never baptized.

 

[westtexas]

My Kingdom Interlinear translations seem to be in the car (I can't remember what editions they are, but I've got the purple cover and the green cover). I also have the Diaglott up here, but it has "a god" under theos. However, I usually use the following web site to research the greek:
http://www.scripture4all.org/

Let's use your website then and show a few more times where the Watchtower and the NWT attempt to deny the deity of Jesus.

"The title ho theos (The God, or God), which now designates the father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus himself: Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos)"---The Watchtower, July 1 1986 pg. 31

These scriptures are taken from http://www.scripture4all.org as you suggested but are the same in your KIT.
John 20:28 Jesus is coming and Thomas says "Kai ho theos mou" or "The God of me"
Matthew 1:23 the verse we all hear so many times at Christmas, Immanual-"meth hemon ho theos" or literally- Immanual with us The God

It appears to me that the Watchtower and the NWT continue to deceive many well-meaning JW's and say Jesus is not "ho theos"-The God and that He is merely-a god

Westtexas

Mohrb, I had to bump this one up just so I could put all the verses together. Your website here also agrees with your KIT and disagrees with the NWT. John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
These 3 verses say He was "ho logos"--The Word and He was "ho theos"--The God
Westtexas