Jesus is God

[Clete]

I never compared sleep to death my friend, Jesus and the Bible does!

It wasn't the comparison I was laughing at, which of course you knew when you wrote this, it was your colossally stupid definition of death.

If your definition of death was correct then sleep would be death as would be every other occurrence of unconsciousness.

Here's a clue for you...

Analogies are not definitions. Sleeping people are not dead and dead people are NOT asleep.

 

[NWL]

Your argument is embarrassingly bad.


Philippians 29 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

Only God the Father and Jesus Christ are called God, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Holy One, the Everlasting Father, the King of kings.

You are disgraceful to bring up a scripture of a mere man here and their being called a king and another savior and use it to speak against Jesus Christ.

You say "Only God the Father and Jesus Christ are called saviour" but then you acknowledge the fact that a mere man is called saviour, YOU are the one who dishonours God and Jesus (see how petty this is). My point is valid, you can't claim ONLY God is called saviour when its states others are savior.

Answer me, how is it possible Ehud and Othenial are referred to as saviors in Judges 3:15 and judges 3:9 if there is "only one savior" Isa 43:11?

God the Father is Spirit. God’s Spirit didn’t die. God the Father lives in unapproachable light, AND He came as a son in the flesh to die for us. There is no time God stopped being God.

So when scripture states "Jesus died" are you suggesting that was speaking in regards to his human nature and not his deity?

 

[NWL]

There is more than one scripture that says Jesus is the almighty God.

Revelation 7:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

You've quoted Rev 7:8 incorrectly, it mentions nothing about the A&O. I think you were meant to quote Rev 1:8.

The lord here refers to the Father NOT Jesus. In Rev 1:8 it mentions the alpha & omega (A&O) and identifies him with the same person as the "one who is, who was, and is coming", “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8). In Rev 1:4,5 it again mentions "one who is, who was, and is coming" and states the "seven spirits" are before "his [the one who is, who was, and is coming] throne", it then goes on to show Jesus as a separate person from the "one who is, who was, and is coming" as you will see, "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ". It is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" who sits on the throne and is the A&O, it is Jesus who takes the scroll from the "one who sits on the throne". (Revelation 5:1,6,7) "And I saw in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll...And I saw...a lamb..At once he [the lamb] came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne."

Jesus clearly isn't the one speaking in Rev 1:8, its the Father.

There is only one everlasting Father.
It is ignorant to claim Isaiah says Jesus will be called God, and Father, and Counselor, but not the same names that are about God the Father. Jesus has other names of God the Father too, such as the Alpha and the Omega.

You've completely ignored what I said, again, Isaiah stated Jesus "will be called" and NOT "Jesus is called", if Jesus already was the eternal Father and Mighty God then the latter phrase would have been used, it was not. You are ignoring evidence. Moreover, Jesus does not have the title A&O, there is no text that states this.

You say Jesus has other expressions that are applied to the Father and that is true, but as I showed so do men. There are some expressions that are applied to the Father that are NEVER applied to Jesus, such as Sovereign Lord (Deut 3:23), almighty God (Exo 6:3), God of Gods (Joshua 22:22), True God (1 Kings 8:60), it a HUGE coincidence that all these titles are ultimate expression in the meanings and are NEVER applied to Jesus right.

Satan is NOT called the Alpha and the Omega, or the Savior, or the Redeemer, or the Everlasting Father, or the Almighty God. You need to stop yourself.

So WHAT, my point is still relevant, you tried to use the fact that Jesus was called God as proof that he is the one, God, I showed you how this alone is not proof that he is the "one God", this is a valid argument. It is bad form to insist a specific point is incorrect in light of more evidence that is still being scrutinized as evidence that I'm incorrect.

That one God the Father is Jesus come in the flesh as a man.

How many times have you seen me make a statement without showing some type of evidence, THIS is exactly what I mean when I earlier said you assert things without evidence. Where is your evidence to accompany your claim? Again, it is pointless to keep asserting points are true when the evidence you have supplied is still undergoing scrutiny.

You try, but you can’t distort the truth and fool me.
Jesus is called the King of kings OF THE MEN OF THE EARTH.
So then, your reasoning is showed to be just more defiance from you of the Truth.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, andthe ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

Did you read that? Jesus is the RULER over the KINGS OF THE EARTH. He is the King of kings.

Now you should stop talking about Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar

You misunderstand my point. You claim because Jesus and the Father have titles they are the same person. My claim is that just because two people have the same title it does not make them the same person. If there are two human kings on earth who are kings over kings they can BOTH be called "king of kings" simultaneously, if there are two men on earth who are Lord over lords they can BOTH be called lord of lords simultaneously. Likewise, if Jesus and the Father are two separate persons they can both be King of Kings and Lord of Lords without the need to assume they are one and the same. Jesus, as appointed by the Father, is a king of kings because the Father has given him that position. The Father as the "one God" and sovereign is a King of kings as he is the God of Jesus and source of all life.

My point is valid and still stands. Answer me, is it possible that two individuals exist on earth who are both referred to "king of kings" at the same time?

 

[NWL]

If the oneness that they share implies Jesus is God then we to are God according to your principle as we are in God in the same oneness, the reasoning is not consistent.

I already proved to you that it does NOT make us God.

You didn’t come from heaven. You were not sinless your whole life. Your blood doesn’t take away the sins of the world. Forgiveness of sin isn’t through your name.

Using an argument from silence is not proof. Just because it was Jesus who came from heaven and did all the actions of Jesus doesn't mean he was God, as stated earlier what prevented an Angel taking a form of man and doing all the things Jesus did? Nothing. If the Angel did do all those things it wouldn't make the Angel God. Jesus was God's firstborn spirit son and the highest of all creation, he was not God, he chose to come down, nothing in the Bible expresses anything other than a like for like ransom had to be made.

Where is the scripture that states God made himself a body, then came to earth as a man, then he went back to heaven to the same place and body. There are no scriptures that say any of the points you just made, what you'll find yourself doing is assuming modalism, that Jesus is the Father, read the verses about the said points that refer to Jesus and then claim God made himself a body, God came to earth as a man, and God went back to heaven to the same place and body, when the verses never state God did those things, but rather Jesus did. Again, for your belief to make sense one needs to assume modalism prior to reading the texts you paraphrased for modalism to be true.

Stop trying to put a label on it. Go by the scriptures. You can’t or you wouldn’t resort to just saying no that is modalism

I'm not claiming by the three points you and I mentioned that anyone would come up with modalism, I'm saying the three points you made in the statement where you expressed "God made himself a body, God came to earth as a man, and God went back to heaven to the same place and body" that the verses you would use to back them up don't say "God" did those things but only Jesus. One has to first assume modalism to believe in the statement you gave however.
​

You are just going against the scriptures denying that Jesus had to die and that it was God’s plan.

God didn’t come to earth to be a son of Mary’s and get married and have children a home and a nice job.

Jesus came to show us the way then make a covenant that reconciles us to God, and then he did the greatest love ever known, he died for us.

You've obviously misunderstood something I've written, I do NOT deny Jesus had to die for us, I simply deny the notion that it HAD to be Jesus. It was the perfect man Adam that led us into sin and death, Adam tipped the scales, so to speak and made them uneven, ONLY an equivalent sacrifice could re-balance the scales. My point is that it could have been anyone who died for us, the only requirement is that the person was without sin the same way Adam was without sin. It did not have to be the person Jesus who came down to die for us, it could have been anyone of God's spirit sons in heaven.

The sacrifice of animals and using them and their blood and having a high priest, etc. are all a teaching tool about what was coming, Jesus Christ.
You disrespect the Bible and the words of God.

Why are you trying to act like a Christian when you don't believe that Bible?

You don't even know that the Spirit of God lives in the saved. You go against that!

No, you simply do not understand what I say which I explained above.

 

[NWL]

You are going against the truth that God’s Spirit lives in the saved.


John 17:26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. John 14:23

so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. Ephesians 3:17


And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. Romans 8:9


2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?


1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

John 14:17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Acts 5:32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

John 1:33
I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 1:14
Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

You did nothing in explaining how the above scripture mean anything other than Jesus and God "being with us" either in a symbolic sense of by the giving of the HS. Throwing more verses into the mix with no explanation does nothing in refuting my points, unless the verses themselves explicitly show how my point is incorrect, which the above verses do not.

When referred to in the Bible, the figurative heart means the inner person, the source of a person’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings, when it states God or Jesus is with, in, or in our hearts its speaking in a figurative sense, not literal, God and Jesus are NOT literally inside our bodies my friend. When verses state the HS is with us it means the HS has been sent to empower us in some type of way. For example, in 1 Cor 5:4 Paul said to the Corinthians "I am with you in spirit along with the power of our Lord Jesus", was Paul literally with them, no, he was with them figuratively.

 

[NWL]

No other ‘god’s’ can do what Jesus did.

Did the other god’s come from God in heaven? No.
Did the other god’s blood take away the sins of the world? No.
Did the other god’s remain sinless their whole lives? No.

The argument you are using here is an argument from silence, you're in effect saying "because no other god has done what Jesus has done he is the one God". How do you know no other gods can do what Jesus did? You don't, you're using silence and conjecture as evidence that your argument is correct. There was nothing stopping the countless of angels that were in heaven to come down in human form and offer themselves as a sacrifice instead of Jesus, it just so happens that Jesus, who is the Father's firstborn son, willingly offered to go. I've said this before and I'll say it again, there is NOTHING in the Bible that suggest the ransom had to be paid by anything other than a perfect human, as it was a perfect and sinless human that lost eternal life there simply needed to be a perfect and sinless human that needed to act as a ransom. Jesus or any angel could have done this.

Unless you can show me how it HAD to be Jesus as God who came as man and offered himself, or why it couldn't have been simple a perfect human who offered themselves then your point of "No other ‘god’s’ can do what Jesus did" is NOT a point it's merely an unscriptural assumption.

Your argument that there are others god’s does NOT prove Jesus isn’t the one and only God come in the flesh.

You're correct it doesn't, but it does open up an avenue that Jesus may not be the "one God" but is simply one of the many "many gods". I'm glad you've acknowledged this. As I've said before just because someone is identified as a God/god in the Bible it doesn't prove they are OR are not the "one God", the only person we can say with 100% certainty is the "one God" is the Father, as he is the only one ever referred to as the "one God" (see 1 Cor 8:4-6), "there is one God, the Father".
​

A person is their spirit with a body.
The scriptures say one body and one Spirit.
Jesus’ spirit is the Spirit of God come with a flesh body, and God even made Himself a body before the creation of anything, and then made everything through that body, who is Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Hebrews 1:2 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

[/QUOTE]

I would deny your claim that a person is their "spirit" with a "body". Spirit in Eph 4:4 which you referenced "The scriptures say one body and one Spirit" isn't in reference to the body of man, but rather, the body of the church, this is clear by the context and other scripture, such as Romans 12:5, "so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another". It is the church that has "one body and one spirit".

How is Hebrews 1:1,2 evidence for anything you say, Hebrews 1:1 reference the Father, the context states that the Father "Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe", notice the end of the sentence, "through whom he [the Father] made the universe, this is talking about a time pre-mankind where it clearly shows two individuals, namely the Father and his son, and has the Father creating the world through Jesus. This is not possible if Jesus is the Father.

Hebrew 1:1,2 also explains Col 1:15, I do not deny Jesus made all things, but this does not mean that he is the creator, how can I say this? Because Hebrews 1:1,2 shows the Father created everything through Jesus, hence why in Col 1:16-17 it uses passive Greek words forms ektistai, which shows Jesus did not create himself but the actions were done through him by another, hence why most translations in Col 1:15-18 state "all things" were created "through" Jesus.

 

[NWL]

Abraham is called ‘father’; but now in Christ, we are not to call each other ‘father’, for we are all brothers and sisters.


Matthew 23: 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

You misunderstand Jesus point, Jesus wasn't trying to say you should only ever refer to God the Father as father and no one else, NOT even your own biological father (grand-fathers included), he was making the point to stop calling other men father. Back in those days, much like today in some denominations of Christendom, people refer persons of authority in the church/synagogue as father as a title of honor, this was common in Jewish culture, they referred to Jewish rabbis as "abba" (Father). This is known throughout the scholarly community:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And call no man your Father ... - This does not, of course, forbid us to apply the term to our real father....the word "father" also denotes "authority, eminence, superiority, a right to command, and a claim to particular respect." In this sense, it is used here. In this sense it belongs eminently to God, and it is not right to give it to people...The Jewish teachers affected that title because they seem to have supposed that a teacher formed the man, or gave him real life, and sought, therefore, to be called father.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And call no man your father upon the earth,.... Not but that children may, and should call their natural parents, fathers...these titles the Scribes and Pharisees loved to be called by, did: and who were called not only by the name of Rabbi, but Abba, "Father".

Your evidence that there is only one father, and that Jesus is the Father because he is called the "eternal father" in Isaiah 9:6 is based on a poor understanding of Jesus' points, he wasn't trying to say we can't call out ancestors father but was instead referring to calling men titles of honour such as "father" and "rabbi".

Not only that, you were given scriptures that say do not bow to angels and men:

Revelation 22:8-9 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”
Acts 10:25-26 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

How many times and ways do you have to be told 'DO NOT"?


Angel says: Do not bow to me only to God.

You say: Jacob bowed to his brother, etc.


Peter says: Do not bow to men.

You say: But Jacob bowed to his brother.


You don't see you are a defiant sinner?

Lol. I'm not claiming "Jacob bowed to his brother" as you accuse me of doing, the Bible does! It mentions many other of bowing to others using the exact same word (LXX) as applied to Jesus. You can try and claim I'm making it up and am a define sinner but these are the words of the Bible, not me.

(Genesis 33:3) "..Then he himself went ahead of them and bowed down to the earth seven times as he came near to his brother.."

(1 Samuel 24:8) "..Then David got up and went out from the cave and called out after Saul: “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down low with his face to the ground and prostrated himself.."

You misunderstand the occurrences angels and when people such as Peter told others not to bow to them. The angel told John in Revelation not to bow as John was giving the Angel an act of worship, Peter told Cornelius not to bow to him out of humility, there is NOTHING in the Bible that states we cannot bow to another man to show respect and honour, bowing out of respect is completely different to bowing in an act of worship, this is the very reason why the Bible has multiple accounts of faithful servant bowing to others with no backlash, as it isn't a sin.

What many people fail to realise is that the word for bowing or obeisance, which is typically done to show respect to someone is the same word in Greek for bowing to worship someone, hence why so many people get mixed up thinking Jesus was worshipped when in fact he was simply given obeisance.

4352. proskuneó
Usage: I go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship.

obeisance
a gesture expressing deferential respect, such as a bow or curtsy.

worship
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

The Bible nowhere condemns doing obeisance to another, as I've previously shown there are multiple examples of faithful ones doing it to men (Genesis 33:3, Exodus 18:7, Ruth 2:10, 1 Samuel 20:41, 1 Samuel 24:8, 1 Samuel 25:3, Daniel 2:46), it does condemn doing worship to anyone other than the Father however.

So people given Jesus proskuneó isn't evidence he is God as one has to discern if the meaning of obeisance or worship needs to be applied in each account, since there is no verse that states we are to worship directly but only verses that state we are to worship the Father, only the Father is to be worshipped. It also shows that Jesus isn't necessarily the Father as one would need to show why obeisance isn't the understanding when he is given proskuneó

 

[NWL]

It wasn't the comparison I was laughing at, which of course you knew when you wrote this, it was your colossally stupid definition of death.

If your definition of death was correct then sleep would be death as would be every other occurrence of unconsciousness.

Here's a clue for you...

Analogies are not definitions. Sleeping people are not dead and dead people are NOT asleep.

Good, I could care less about your opinion of my opinion, I do care about your opinion of the Bible and the points I raise regarding your understanding of it. You aren't open to engagement as you lack the ability, if you did then I would tell you to deal with what I say about the Bible instead of nitpicking at petty points you think you can handle whilst ignoring the bigger picture.

 

[Bright Raven]

Good, I could care less about your opinion of my opinion, I do care about your opinion of the Bible and the points I raise regarding your understanding of it. You aren't open to engagement as you lack the ability, if you did then I would tell you to deal with what I say about the Bible instead of nitpicking at petty points you think you can handle whilst ignoring the bigger picture.

we're supposed to pay attention to what a cultist has to say about the Bible?

 

[NWL]

we're supposed to pay attention to what a cultist has to say about the Bible?

I haven’t even been speaking with you so don’t know why you’re coming at me with attitude. I’m not telling anyone that they’re supposed to listen to me, I’m simply speaking to anyone who is willing to speak to me.

 

[7djengo7]

So people given Jesus proskuneó isn't evidence he is God as one has to discern if the meaning of obeisance or worship needs to be applied in each account, since there is no verse that states we are to worship directly but only verses that state we are to worship the Father, only the Father is to be worshipped. It also shows that Jesus isn't necessarily the Father as one would need to show why obeisance isn't the understanding when he is given proskuneó

Of course, this devil-led anti-Christ named "NWL" cannot tell us what it would be to "worship directly". He cannot tell us what is supposed to be the difference between worshiping, on the one hand, and "worshiping directly", on the other. He imagines he has somehow significantly modified the verb, 'worship', by pasting to it the adjective, 'directly', though he will be at a complete loss to deal with any questions as to what significance he imagines he has added, therebly. And, of course, nowhere in the Bible do we find NWL's phrase, "worship directly", nor anything like it. Besides, remember that this lying Christ-blasphemer, NWL--who does not even worship YHWH--said this:

We worship Jesus directly, this worship, in turn, goes to the Father.

So, out of the one side of his deranged mouth, NWL says "there is no verse that states we are to worship directly", whereas, out of the other side of his deranged mouth, NWL says "We worship Jesus directly".

NWL tells us that he "worships Jesus directly", despite the fact that NWL tells us "there is no verse that states we are to worship directly". What a hypocritical clown!

Also, note that just as NWL's phrase, "worship directly", has absolutely no provenance in Scripture, NWL's nonsense about worship "going to" so-and-so is also nowhere to be found in Scripture. It's sheer NWL nonsense; it's all a part of his illegitimate, anti-Christ, Russellite language game--what his programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society have programmed him to use as a weapon in his/their war against Scripture truth, and the souls of men.

NWL worships neither God the Father, nor Jesus Christ, but is an anti-Christ liar.

 

[Bright Raven]

I haven’t even been speaking with you so don’t know why you’re coming at me with attitude. I’m not telling anyone that they’re supposed to listen to me, I’m simply speaking to anyone who is willing to speak to me.

Can you tell me why the Watchtower changed the Scriptures?

 

[Right Divider]

Can you tell me why the Watchtower changed the Scriptures?

And by "changed" you mean "intentionally misinterpreted". :thumb:

 

[7djengo7]

​

Can you tell me why the Watchtower changed the Scriptures?​

​

And by "changed" you mean "intentionally misinterpreted". :thumb:

The Russellites downright replaced the Bible with something that is not the Bible--their vile "New World Translation".​

 

[NWL]

Can you tell me why the Watchtower changed the Scriptures?

I have not claimed any bible is superior to another so why are you raising this? I do not stick with any one translations but use a wide variety of bibles.

What verse has the WT changed today (btw I’m non here to defend the WT)?

 

[Clete]

Good, I could care less about your opinion of my opinion, I do care about your opinion of the Bible and the points I raise regarding your understanding of it. You aren't open to engagement as you lack the ability, if you did then I would tell you to deal with what I say about the Bible instead of nitpicking at petty points you think you can handle whilst ignoring the bigger picture.

:chuckle:

Cultists are just sort of naturally funny.

 

[NWL]

:chuckle:

Cultists are just sort of naturally funny.

So are people who are obsessed with them.

You lost against me and decided to run, no amount of mockery is going to change that.

 

[7djengo7]

The real reason why you won't debate me on the issue, is because you know you can't reasonably, defend your position. "Sigh".

Hi, Jerk. Unfortunately for you, when you say, "you can't....defend your position", all you mean is, "you can't force my will to decide to leave off my present position, and to come to agree with your position". But, there's nothing shocking about that: since you're an anti-Christ, hardened against the truth of Scripture, your degenerate mind will do what your degenerate mind will do--which means you will continue to oppose the Scripture truth that AMR has presented to you. Since AMR (of blessed TOL memory), being a Trinitarian, has the Bible truth on his side--against the falsehood to which you, as an anti-Trinitarian, are irrationally beholden--he has no need to defend his position; for truth needs no defense. You, frothing up your irrationality and stupidity in your deranged attacks against Bible truth, are certainly not in any way hurting the truth that AMR has shared with you. For, truth needs no defense against your ravings; that you rail against the truth in your anti-Christ stupidity is your problem--it is not truth's problem, no sir. AMR, as well as the rest of us Trinitarians (being, as we are, on the side of Bible truth) are, of course, not the least bit capable of softening your hardened, devil-directed heart, nor of causing you to believe what you, by your God-despising will, are bound and determined to deny. That's reality, Jerk.

 

[7djengo7]

So are people who are obsessed with them.

You lost against me and decided to run, no amount of mockery is going to change that.

The only one who has lost against you is yourself, inasmuch as you're given to contradicting yourself in your anti-Christ madness.

 

[Bright Raven]

I have not claimed any bible is superior to another so why are you raising this? I do not stick with any one translations but use a wide variety of bibles.

What verse has the WT changed today (btw I’m non here to defend the WT)?

John 1:1

​​​​​​ [h=1]John 1:1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)[/h] [h=3]The Deity of Jesus Christ[/h]
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


NWT

​​​​​​ [h=1]According to John1:1[/h] 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.