So, you say the JW position is that the crucifixion took place on a Friday, i.e., the sixth day of the week. How do they account for the lack of a third night?
In Jewish reckoning any part of a day counts as a full day and night, so Friday (day 1), Saturday (day 2), and part of Sunday (day 3) fulfill the “three days and three nights” expression as an idiomatic way of saying “three days.”
Jesus dies about 3:00 p.m. on Friday (Nisan 14), remains in the tomb through Saturday (Nisan 15), and is raised early Sunday (Nisan 16); We count any part of a day as a full day, so Friday, Saturday, and Sunday make “three days,” even though there are only two full nights.
If you were asking me, I was curious too, so I had to look it up. Here is what I found.
The NWT Translation Committee
The following individuals are identified as the core members who prepared the original translation between 1947 and 1960:
- Frederick William Franz (1893–1992)
Role: Principal Translator and lead theologian.
Qualifications: * Attended the University of Cincinnati for three years (1911–1914).
Completed 21 semester hours of Classical Greek.
Completed a partial survey course in Biblical Greek.
Self-taught in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Spanish, Portuguese, and German.
He was the only member of the committee with formal university-level training in any biblical language.
-
Nathan Homer Knorr (1905–1977)
Role: Committee Chairman and 3rd President of the Watch Tower Society.
Qualifications: * High school graduate.
No formal training or university degrees in biblical languages, theology, or translation.
His role was primarily administrative and organizational, overseeing the production and publication. -
Albert D. Schroeder (1911–2006)
Role: Committee member and Registrar of the Gilead Missionary School.
Qualifications: * Attended the University of Michigan for three years, majoring in Mechanical Engineering, before dropping out to enter the full-time ministry.
No known formal academic credentials in Greek, Hebrew, or linguistics. -
George D. Gangas (1906–1994)
Role: Committee member.
Qualifications: * A Turkish national of Greek descent.
Fluent in Modern Greek (which differs significantly from the Koine Greek used in the New Testament).
Before the committee, he translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.
No formal academic training in Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek. -
Milton G. Henschel (1920–2003)
Role: Committee member and assistant to Nathan Knorr (later 4th President).
Qualifications: * High school graduate.
Joined the headquarters staff at age 19.
No formal academic training or degrees in biblical languages or translation.
Because the majority of the committee lacked formal degrees in the specialized fields of papyrology, textual criticism, or Semitic languages, the NWT is often a subject of debate among mainstream biblical scholars.
The Society argues that the “fruit” of the translation—its internal consistency and its restoration of the divine name (Jehovah)—is evidence of its quality, regardless of the translators’ secular credentials.
Critics and secular scholars (such as Dr. Bruce Metzger or Dr. William Barclay) have frequently pointed to specific verses (like John 1:1 or Colossians 1:16-17) where they argue the translation was influenced more by the group’s specific doctrines than by standard Greek or Hebrew grammar.
Note: Karl Klein (1905–2001) is also frequently cited as a sixth member of the committee who contributed to the later stages of the project, though he also lacked formal linguistic degrees.
Peter
Well, I guess I just proverd that wrong. Sorry.
Peter
No. I see a debate over religion. @Gospel did say, “Ask me anything.” I most likely come across as argumentative at times because of my passion for the Word. If I cross a line or prove incorrect, I always try to apologize. I do not see anything like that here.
The question you asked about the writers of the NWT is a logical question. One I was curious about. I saw nothing off topic or ever rude. The Tpoic is plainly “I’m a Jehovah’s Witness,” And he did say “Ask me anything.”
Peter
1 Like
I hate to do this. But I literally just answered this on a nothing Topic.
"Peter says he was raised in the spirit- 1Pet 3:18
> “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,” 1 Peter 3:18
You do realize he is talking about us. Jesus suffered once for sins; he was the righteous for the unrighteous, us. Why? To bring us to God by this, He has put our flesh to death, for us to be alive in the Spirit.
On the first day, they didn’t recognize him, not his original body. He appeared behind a locked door 2 x, no mortal flesh can do that. He did show Thomas his original body. He can be whatever body he wants to be, after all, he is God’s son. Has been given all authority to do as he pleases, but he always does his Father’s will.
Ok, let’s go through this. Of course, they did not recognize Him; He was dead. They were mourning. I doubt they even look that close at Him. Now the rest? In Jewish and Christian theology, “flesh and blood” refers to the physical body, yet “imperishable.”
That distinction, “flesh and bone” rather than “flesh and blood,” is a specific detail that theologians and linguists often point to as a key to understanding his resurrected state. In that distinction, “flesh and bone” rather than “flesh and blood” is a specific detail that theologians and linguists often point to as a key to understanding his resurrected state.
Let’s read Luke 24:37-44:
“But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.”
So Jesus said yes, this is my spirit body? No, he did not.
" And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them. Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
The Flesh: Confirms he is still human and maintains his identity. The Bone: Confirms he has a solid, structural reality—he isn’t a “mist” or a ghost.
When you combine “flesh and bone” with the concept of the Glorified Body, the locked door ceases to be a barrier. If the resurrected Jesus is the “template” for a new kind of matter, he isn’t limited by the molecular density of wood or stone. Not to mention, while He was here, He disappeared in the middle of crowds, walked on Water, healed the sick, and raised the dead. I’m not sure that is normal either.
If you want to get a scientific analogy, atoms are mostly space. If the “flesh and bone” of a glorified body is perfectly ordered and governed by the Spirit, it could theoretically pass through the “space” of a door’s atomic structure without any collision.
So which is more accurate? Jesus being the state, Jesus said, or assuming that flesh cannot do what Jesus did, even though Jesus did. No, my friend, Jesus was resurrected in the flesh and yet, a new body which, instead of blood being the life force, having poured that out on the cross, now filled with the Holy Spirit of God.
Peter
Some anti-Witness websites offer a list of names of members of the Governing Body who, they say, are the members of the Translation Committee, and they claim that, except for Frederick Franz, none of them had any training.
The list is made-up; the Committee was and still is annonymous.
Anyway, back in the 16th century, opposers said that Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible was "full of falsifications.” They believed they could prove that Luther’s Bible contained “1,400 heretical errors and lies.” (Erwing Iserloh, Joseph Glazik and Hubert Jedin, History of the Church: Reformation and Counter Reformation p. 95 96) Today, however, Luther’s Bible is viewed as a landmark translation.
In modern times, the New World Translation has also been very criticised. Why? Mainly, because it is unconventional, since it departs from the traditional rendering of many verses.
Scholar Jason BeDuhn is associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. After examining several passages of Scripture that are controversial, and comparing the Greek text with a number of different translations, “Most of the differences [of the NWT compared to mainstream translations] are due to the greater accuracy of the NWT as a literal, conservative translation.” He said that the NWT “emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” He doesn’t say that it is the most accurate of all there are, or of all time, but of the translations he compared. Anyway, he calls it a “remarkably good” translation.
I don’t know much Koine Greek (I’ve studied a little of Classic Greek), but I’ve studied Hebrew at college and I was shocked when I saw the level of accuracy of the Hebrew part of the NWT. It is clearly a translation made with a lot of care and attention to detail. So, if it were true that its translators didn’t have any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, that would seriously challenge my belief that there are not miracles in our times…
It should be sufficient to point out what one respected organization says (and does). Yes, the Lockman Foundation states in the preface to their New American Standard Bible : “no work will ever be personalized.” (And the jacket of the 1971 Reference Edition of the NASB states even more clearly: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits .”)
And, sure enough, they do not identify their translators. Why? Because, as they write in their preface: “They shall give to the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him, and no work will ever be personalized.” So when detractors of Jehovah’s Witnesses mock the translation committee for its humility, they also mock other respected “orthodox” organizations attempting to follow God’s Word in this respect.
Just as a man should be judged by his actions, a Bible should be judged on its accuracy of rendering the Greek and Hebrew texts (not on who translated, nor what any prejudiced source says, nor by comparison to another translation, etc.).
We believe that he resurrected in what the apostle Paul called a spiritual body or a glorious body.
I hope that helps.
Gospel,
re: “In Jewish reckoning any part of a day counts as a full day and night…”
So, if the Messiah instead of saying that He would be in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights, He said that He would be there for one day and one night, that no one back then would have thought that at least a portion of a night time had to be involved? - That one hour of daytime would satisfy His prophesy.
Gospel,
re: “In Jewish reckoning any part of a day counts as a full day and night…”
Agree that it was an idiom meanig that any portion of a calendar day could be counted a whole day. But to quote E.W.Bullinger in his Appendex 144 in The Companion Bible - “… when the number of ‘nights’ is stated as well as the number of ‘days’, then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact”.
So, if you are suggesting that it was a common way of expression, do you have any actual examples which support that idea that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time could be said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could be?
While the day of the crucifixion is debated, the day of the resurrection is absolutely clear: Scripture says that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. What’s more important than knowing the day of the week of Jesus’ death is believing that He did die and that He rose from the dead. Equally important is why He died—to take the punishment that all sinners deserve. Jesus is truly the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Putting your trust in Him results in eternal life (John 3:16, 36)! This is true whether He was crucified on a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.
Gospel,
re: “While the day of the crucifixion is debated, the day of the resurrection is absolutely clear: Scripture says that Jesus rose on the first day of the week.”
Just so it’s understood that there is only 1 verse in scripture, as the KJV and similar versions have it which places the resurrection on the first day of the week - Mark 16:9. And even that verse is believed to be spurious by a number of Bible translators and commentators. Plus, the meaning of the verse is dependent on where the comma ought to be placed.
You are indeed correct. So let me share what I found on the subject. Jesus once said: “Just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.” (Matt. 12:40) Many Bible readers take that to mean three full days and nights, or seventy-two hours. Scriptural evidence, though, shows that Jesus was in the tomb for a period less than seventy-two hours.
Jesus died on Passover day, Nisan 14, on the day now known as Friday. And by early morning of the day now termed Sunday he had already been raised from the dead. Mark’s account reads: “Very early on the first day of the week [Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] came to the memorial tomb, when the sun had risen. . . . When they entered into the memorial tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side clothed in a white robe, and they were stunned. He said to them: ‘Stop being stunned. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was impaled. He was raised up, he is not here.’”—Mark 16:2-6; John 20:1.
If Matthew 12:40 means three complete twenty-four-hour days, when would Jesus have been buried? Counting back seventy-two hours from early Sunday morning, we would come to early Thursday morning. But since Jesus died about 3:00 p.m., he would have had to be laid in the tomb on Wednesday afternoon. (Matt. 27:46, 50) The Bible account regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, however, in no way suggests that the period involved extended all the way from Wednesday to Sunday. Let us, then, examine the evidence.
The reason the women went to the tomb was to grease Jesus’ body with spices. They bought some of these spices immediately after the sabbath. (Mark 16:1; compare Luke 23:56.) Which sabbath could this have been? If Nisan 14 had extended through Wednesday afternoon, this would make Thursday, Nisan 15, the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes and hence also a sabbath day. (Lev. 23:5-7) The next sabbath would have been the weekly sabbath, starting on Friday evening and running to Saturday evening, since the Jewish days began at sundown.
It does not seem reasonable that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome would have purchased spices immediately after Nisan 15 (Thursday evening, according to such reckoning) and then waited until early on the morning of Nisan 18 (Sunday) to go to Jesus’ tomb. That would have been more than three and a half full days since the death of Jesus. Any greasing with spices would have been of very little value for the corpse then. (See John 11:39.) It would also appear strange indeed for the women to allow Nisan 16 (a day that would not have been a sabbath) to pass by without doing anything and then to rush to the tomb as early as possible on Sunday morning, Nisan 18.
In view of these factors favoring a period of less than three full days between Jesus’ burial and resurrection, the question arises: Why could Jesus say that the “Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”? (Matt. 12:40) This is because the expression “three days and three nights” can refer to parts of three days, as is clearly shown at 1 Samuel 30:12, 13. Under the heading “Day,” The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day.” Accordingly, as Bible commentator Lightfoot observes, three days and three nights “included any part of the first day; the whole of the following night; the next day and its night; and any part of the succeeding or third day.”
Was this true in the case of Jesus? The answer to this question is clear once the year in which Jesus died is determined. Knowing the year, it is possible by computation in line with the principles of the Jewish calendar to ascertain the day of the week on which Nisan 14 fell, even back in the first century C.E. Happily the Bible provides enough evidence to fix the year.
According to Luke 3:1, John the Baptist began his ministry “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” As Luke used a Greek word literally meaning “governorship,” some have concluded that the “fifteenth year” should be counted as starting from the time that Tiberius was a coregent with Augustus. Hence, they would place the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in 27 C.E. However, just exactly when such coregency began is in question.
While the start of the coregency is uncertain, the beginning of Tiberius’ reign as Caesar is well established. The date is August 17, 14 C.E. (Gregorian calendar). Hence, the fifteenth year extended from August 17, 28 C.E., to August 16, 29 C.E. This would place the start of Jesus’ ministry in 29 C.E., about six months after John the Baptist began his activity. It was first at the time of his baptism that Jesus was anointed by God’s spirit, thereby becoming the promised Messiah or Christ. Bible prophecy specifically foretold the exact time for this event. (Dan. 9:25) And applying that prophecy to historical data also points to 29 C.E. as the time for Messiah’s appearance.
Daniel 9:27 indicates that at the middle of the “week,” or three and a half years after beginning his ministry, Messiah would “cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.” This he did by laying down his own life in sacrifice, thereby causing all animal sacrifices to cease having any value in God’s eyes. Accordingly, his ministry as Messiah lasted three and a half years, extending from the fall of 29 C.E. to the spring month of Nisan in the year 33 C.E. As established by computation, in the year 33 C.E. Passover day or Nisan 14 began on Thursday evening and ran to Friday evening.
This harmonizes well with the Bible accounts concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus died on Friday afternoon and was buried before the sabbath began. This being the case, the weekly sabbath coincided with the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes, which was also a sabbath. It is logical, then, that this is why the Bible calls the day following Jesus’ death a “great” sabbath. (John 19:31, 42; Mark 15:42, 43; Luke 23:54) As soon as that sabbath was over (which would be at sundown, Nisan 15) Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome bought additional spices for greasing Jesus’ body. Their earliest opportunity to use the spices came at daybreak Sunday morning, Nisan 16. By that time Jesus had already been resurrected, after having been in the tomb for parts of three days.
Exactly my point, with many of these departures, it changes the meanings.
Yup. Jason BeDuhn is a prominent scholar of religious studies, currently a professor at Northern Arizona University. However? He is best known for his work in New Testament history, Manichaeism, and his rigorous—sometimes controversial—approach to biblical translation.
BeDuhn. who does not believe Jesus is God, is a significant figure for the JWs. His most famous book for general readers, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English New Testament Translations, evaluates several major Bible versions.
Of course, he argues that many popular translations (like the NIV or KJV) are influenced by “theological bias,” specifically regarding the divinity of Jesus. How about that? Just because you have a degree, or even a doctorate, doesn’t mean you are intelligent or above being corrupt.
And then they call Jesus a liar. Nice. Why would they want their names on it? God knows who they are, though.
Exactly. What I have been saying all along. The JW’s Bible is corrupted because it WAS created to be "personalized.”
Peter
Jason BeDuhn: “While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.”
-Greek Scholar in his book: “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament”
Steven T. Byington: Of the NWT, “If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines.”
-Christian Century, “Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures”
Frederick Danker: “Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Bible Translation Committee.”
-“Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study”
Rolf Furuli: “I read the English text of the NWT against the Hebrew text, word for word…the translators of the NWT have been extremely faithful both to their own translation principles and to the Hebrew text.”
-Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Oslo University
S. Maclean Gilmore: “The New Testament edition was made by a committee…that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”
-Andover Newton Quarterly
You know, that all sounds great. They are super smart people, and they agree with the JWs’ points of view. Well? Let’s talk about it.
Jason BeDuhn, we already talked about.
2 Steven T. Byington wrote the transcript of the NWT. Took him 60 years. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society acquired the manuscript and published it posthumously in 1972 as The Bible in Living English. Of course, he agrees.
3 Frederick Danker was not a JW. He was a lifelong Lutheran and an ordained minister within that tradition. Danker’s relationship with the organization was strictly academic rather than personal or denominational. Interestingly, he disagrees with the nature of Jesus (The Trinity). The Lutheran View: Danker held the standard Nicene view: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, part of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
This is where he differs most sharply from Jehovah’s Witnesses or Arians, who believe Jesus was a created being. For a Lutheran scholar like Danker, the deity of Christ is the “hinge” on which everything else turns.
4 Rolf Furuli (born 1942) is a figure whose work and life are inextricably linked to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, though his journey has been marked by significant controversy and recent upheaval.
He is a Norwegian scholar of Semitic languages, but he is best known for his attempts to bridge the gap between academic research and the specific doctrines of the Watch Tower Society. He tried to “fix it.”
5 S. MacLean Gilmour (1905–1970) was a prominent Canadian New Testament scholar and professor. The connection: He is frequently cited in discussions involving the New World Translation because of his critical review of it. Gilmour famously reviewed the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures in the journal The Christian Century (1951).
What he said: He acknowledged that the translation was a “meticulous” work and praised some of its literalness, but he famously criticized it for being “turgid” (wooden/stiff) and for allowing theology to dictate the translation—specifically regarding the deity of Christ.
Unlike Rolf Furuli (who defends the NWT) or Frederick Danker (who provided the tools to translate it), Gilmour was a mainstream Protestant scholar: View of Jesus? He held to the traditional Christian view of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus.
Again, interestingly, he argued that the NWT translators “distorted” certain verses (like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:16) to fit their specific doctrines.
Peter
Whenever you see “a” in the Greek Scriptures or New Testament, it has been supplied by the translators. As you may have learned at school, “the” is called the definite article and refers to something specific, while “a” or “an” is the indefinite article. If someone said, “I watched a film last night,” this could refer to any film. To make it specific, I would add, “The film was Jurassic Park.” Now we all know which film is being referred to.
The Greek in the Bible is similar. In Mark chapter 9, it refers to “a cup of water.” There is no article in the Greek, so “a” is included in the English translation. Yet in First Corinthians, we have “the cup of the Lord,” and here the definite article “the” in English is added, and we can see it is talking about a very specific cup.
When talking about God, we don’t typically say “the God” in the same way as we would say “the cup” in English, unless there’s a reason to, such as when referring to a title like “the God of the heavens.” Yet the Greek will generally have the definite article when this is the case. Translators typically will write “God” with a capital “G” and no article when referring to God. Without the article, then in instances it can be translated as “our God.”
In John chapter 1:1, we have “Theos” in Greek, or “God” in English, with the definite article, and then again without the definite article. This makes clear that we have a distinction between “Theos” with the definite article—that is, with the Word—and “Theos” without the definite article that the Word was. So the reasoning behind the New World Translation using “a god” to describe the Word is, first, due to “Theos” being there twice, once with the article and once without; second, the obvious problem of the Word being the same God that he was with. The first “Theos” is the Father, who is with the Word, or Jesus, and this makes them distinct.
Samuel Haas: “This work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship.”
-Bible Scholar in “Journal of Biblical Literature”
C. Houtman: “The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.”
-“Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift”, [Dutch Theological Magazines]
Benjamin Kedar: “I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that [the OT] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible…Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language…I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”
-Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has a Ph’d from Yale
Robert M. McCoy: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”
-“Andover Newton Quarterly”
I don’t see the problem with Colossians 1:16.
Whether you believe that Jesus is the Creator or that he works under the direction of the Creator, he created every other thing, didn’t he? If someone believed Jesus created himself, then yes, this rendering of Colossians 1:16 would contradict them. Otherwise, I don’t see the problem.
To quote someone else about this:
Prof. Jason Beduhn makes a further point about this verse in the NWT in his book Truth in Translation- Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, page 85:
“So what exactly are objectors to “other” arguing for as the meaning of the phrase “all things”? That Christ created himself (v. 16)? That Christ is before God and that God was made to exist by means of Christ (v. 17)? That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to God (v. 20)? When we spell out what is denied by the use of “other” we can see clearly how absurd the objection is.”
The point is obvious: the Greek word pas (all) does not always necessarily mean every person, human or spirit, who is living, has ever lived in the past or will ever live in the future. Common sense must be applied. If we applied an inflexible and unreasonable rule, we’d conclude that if we say “God created all things”, we mean that God created even himself. Of course that is absurd.
In other words, the facts need to be ignored to avoid them saying something we dislike. You and the JWs seem to be calling Jesus a liar, and your religion has changed the book to fit your beliefs.
Here is a formulation of the key instances and categories where Jesus identifies himself as God.
The “I AM” declarations. In the Gospel of John, Jesus uses the phrase “I am” $ego$ $eimi$, which resonates with the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus.
These seven statements describe his divine role: “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35) “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12) “I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7) “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11) “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25) “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) “I am the true vine” (John 15:1)
The absolute claim: In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This is widely considered the most direct claim, as his audience immediately picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.
Direct statements of Jesus explicitly linked his identity and essence to God the Father:
John 10:30: **“I and the Father are one.”**John 14:9: **“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”**John 17:5: He prays about the glory he shared with the Father “before the world existed,” claiming pre-existence.
Acceptance of divine worship and titles, Jesus claimed divinity by accepting what was traditionally reserved for God alone.
Accepting worship: He accepted worship from the healed blind man (John 9:38) and Thomas, who called him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
Forgiving sins: In Mark 2:5–7, Jesus tells a paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The scribes present correctly noted that only God can forgive sins, viewing his claim as a divine one.
Even the use of the “Son of Man” title, while “Son of Man” sounds human, Jesus frequently used it in reference to Daniel 7:13–14, a prophecy regarding a heavenly figure who receives an everlasting kingdom and worship from all nations. During his trial in Mark 14:61–62, when asked if he was the Son of God, he replied, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Divine authority over sacred institutions. Jesus claimed authority over laws and traditions established by God: The Sabbath: He declared himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8). The Temple: He referred to himself as “something greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6).
Also, remember this.
“Therefore, I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus is accursed!’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:3
Hope this helps you to understand that the JW religion is false, and I hope you wake up to this fact before it is too late.
Peter
Jesus held an exalted heavenly position before he came to the earth. Jesus referred to this position when he prayed: “Father, glorify me with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”—John 17:5.
He helped his Father create all other things. Jesus worked alongside God “as a master worker.” (Proverbs 8:30) Regarding Jesus, the Bible says: “By means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth.”—Colossians 1:16.
God worked through Jesus to bring every other creation into existence. This creation included all other spirit creatures, as well as the physical universe. (Revelation 5:11) In some respects, this cooperation between God and Jesus was like that of an architect working with a builder. The architect creates the design; the builder brings the design to reality.
The grammar of Jn 8:58 requires that it be rendered as a state that started in the past and continues to the present. This is sometimes called a “Present of Past Action.” It cannot be properly rendered with a simple present tense.
The translation “I Am” is verbal nonsense. EGO EIMI is not a title in Jn.8:58 (nor is it a title in Ex.3). It is the main clause and is modified by the adverbial phrase “Before Abraham was born.” It is easy to see how nonsensical these translations are by substituting a name for EGW EIMI: “Before Abraham was born, Fred.”
Rendering EGO EIMI here with the present tense “I am” is also grammatically erroneous. When EIMI is not used as a copula it always describes a state and is the imperfect form, both which denote duration and not a punctiliar event.
“I am (eimi) never has a punctiliar ending”.—Edward Goodrick; Hebrew and Greek
It was the Father and God of Jesus who gave him the ability or authority to forgive sins.
Matthew 9:1-8
1 He entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city. 2 Behold, they brought to him a man who was paralyzed, lying on a bed. Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, “Son, cheer up! Your sins are forgiven you.” 3 Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man blasphemes.” 4 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk?’ 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” (then he said to the paralytic), “Get up, and take up your mat, and go up to your house.” 7 He arose and departed to his house. 8 But when the multitudes saw it, THEY MARVELED AND GLORIFIED GOD, WHO HAD GIVEN SUCH AUTHORITY TO MEN. — Matthew 9:1-8, World English
Matthew 9:8 reveals that Jesus, as a man among men, received this authority to forgive sin from his God and Father.
Peter, in speaking to the Jews, described Jesus as “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by [Greek instrumental “en”, “by means of,” – Strong’s #1722] him in the midst of you.” (Acts 2:22) The “God” that Peter refers is evidently not Jesus whom “God” approved, so Peter must be referring to the God and Father of Jesus (1 Peter 1:3), and in doing this he is presenting “God” as one person, that is the Father. This agrees with Paul’s statement that there is “one God of whom are all,” and Paul identifies that “one God” as being the Father of Jesus. – 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Acts 2:22-23 shows God performed works through Jesus.
If you’re wondering in what sense Jesus is Lord, the Bible’s answer is that Jesus is Lord in the sense that He was made Lord by another, namely by His God, the Father, as we read in Acts 2:36,
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Even in this verse, Christ is again distinct from the one God. So it’s clear: for Paul, the one true God is the Father alone!
So it’s clear that, in agreement with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles, Paul also believes the Father alone is the one true God, especially in light of 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
As JEHOVAH’s Witnesses, we strive to adhere to the form of Christianity that Jesus taught and that his apostles practiced. This article summarizes our basic beliefs. We worship the one true and Almighty God, the Creator, whose name is JEHOVAH. (Psalm 83:18; Revelation 4:11) He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.—Exodus 3:6; 32:11; John 20:17.