Sunday, January 22, 2012

Jehovah's Witnesses call God's kingdom the true government

I was cutting this down for an article in my Jehovah's Witness News, January 2012 when I realised there were so many points to answer, that I decided to respond in a separate post. The article is bold to distinguish it from my comments.

Jehovah's Witnesses call God's kingdom the true government, Jenna Mink, Bowling Green Daily News, January 20, 2012.

[Right: Forest Walters of Bowling Green speaks Sunday at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses at 1035 Mt. Olivet Rd. Walters is an elder of the hall, and spoke on the topic "Keep close in mind the fear inspiring day." Pete Rodman/Daily News]

It is significant that Jehovah's Witnesses "fear" the Day of Judgment. That alone shows they are not Christians (see also below) because for Christians, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside," as the JW's own NWT says:

1Jn 4:19 NWT "There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside, because fear exercises a restraint [Gk. "has to do with punishment" cf. ESV]. Indeed, he that is under fear has not been made perfect in love."

But the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society needs to keep its members constantly in fear so that it can keep them firmly under its control.

Also the Watchtower Society does not really believe the text, "Your word [the Bible] is truth" - John 17:17 NWT, because it has effectively admitted that if JWs "read the Bible exclusively" they would come to believe the doctrines of Christianity:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ..." ("Serving Jehovah `Shoulder to Shoulder'," The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, pp.28-29, p.29).

not those of the Watchtower!

At the age of 18, Rachel Walters already is a traveling minister. She's had the door slammed in her face. She's heard her share of slurs. A few people have answered their doors wearing nothing but a towel. But it doesn't deter the young Jehovah's Witness from Bowling Green. Her belief is everything, she said. "I like ... the preaching work," Walters said. "It gives us a chance to go out and bring our hope to other people."

This Watchtower teaching that "anyone who participates in their door-to-door literature distribution program [is] a minister" is one of the Society's "back- and-forth doctrinal flip-flop[s]". Because from at least 1956 "the Society taught that all JWs were ministers." Then "In 1976 this teaching was reversed, so that only those appointed as elders, servants, and so on, were called ministers." "Then in 1982 ... the teaching was reversed again-back to the earlier point of view-and the term ministers was again applied to all active Witnesses":

"Minister(s) .... Though Jehovah's Witnesses call anyone who participates in their door-to-door literature distribution program a minister ... In this matter of `ministers,' however, the organization cannot claim that the changes in teaching have been progressive with advancing light, for the simple reason that JWs ended up believing the same way they had originally. In essence, the changes took place along these lines: first, the official view was that all JWs were ministers; then the Society declared that only its appointed congregational leaders (elders and servants) were ministers, offering biblical support for this position; finally, it returned to teaching the original view. These back-and-forth changes can be traced in the name changes of the Society's internal publication for those going door to door. The monthly was named Kingdom Ministry in 1956, because the Society taught that all JWs were ministers. In 1976 this teaching was reversed, so that only those appointed as elders, servants, and so on, were called ministers, and the members in general were not ministers. So, in 1976 the publication's name was changed to Our Kingdom Service. Then in 1982 after a shakeup on the Governing Body involving expulsion of Raymond Franz from the organization, the teaching was reversed again-back to the earlier point of view-and the term ministers was again applied to all active Witnesses. Accordingly, the publication's name was changed again, this time to the present form, Our Kingdom Ministry. Illustrations and text on page 247 of the JW book Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom purportedly covering the history of this internal publication show earlier and current versions of the monthly but omit the 1956-76 Kingdom Ministry and the 1976-82 Our Kingdom Service-evidently to hide the facts about this embarrassing back- and-forth doctrinal flip-flop." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, pp.164-166. Emphasis original).

This "embarrassing back- and-forth doctrinal flip-flop" shows that the Watchtower Society, like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, "teach[es] as doctrines commands of men" making them in effect to be "commandment of God" (Mk 7:7-8 NWT), and so comes under Jesus' condemnation.

It's that hope that drives Jehovah's Witnesses. They are a unique group, especially this year. During a time when conversations are buzzing about the upcoming presidential election - and religion is a big part of that discussion - Jehovah's Witnesses stay away from anything political. They don't believe in government. They don't vote, join the military or wave the American flag. They don't celebrate holidays. They believe that trinities are evil. It all goes back to their belief that the true government is God's kingdom, which will soon take over. Their beliefs stem from a strict interpretation of the Bible and the histories of certain events, such as holidays.

Again, like the Pharisees, the Watchtower has a long list of "don'ts", to give JWs the illusion of negative righteousness. As for "They don't celebrate holidays" because of "the histories of certain events, such as holidays," see below.

On, "They believe that trinities are evil," that would mean that JWs believe the Christian Trinity, which is Biblical (Mt 3:16-17; 28:19; Lk 1:35; 3:22; Jn 14:16-17; Ac 2:33; Rom 1:4; 8:11; 15:16; 1Cor 12:4-6; 2Cor 13:14; Eph 1:13-14; 2:18; 4:4-6; 2Th 2:13; Heb 9:14; 1Pet 1:2; Jude 1:20-21), is "evil," which must the ultimate blasphemy, calling God "evil." See below on the Society's claim to be "Christian."

And on "their belief that the true government is God's kingdom, which will soon take over" the Society's original prediction, as propounded by its founder Charles Taze Russell (1852 -1916), was that "in A. D. 1914... the Kingdom of God ... will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be `set up,' or firmly established, in the earth:"

"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e. the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A. D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove: Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, `Thy Kingdom come,' will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be `set up,' or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." (Russell, C.T., "Studies in the Scriptures, Series II: The Time is at Hand," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1889, pp.77-78. Emphasis original).

This was proved to be a false prophecy in Russell's own lifetime. After Russell's death in 1916, in new printings of his writings, the Society dishonestly altered Russell's words to make it seem that he predicted that 1914 would not be the "end" of the world, but the "beginning" of its end. Anyway, the Society continued to make false prophecies of the end of this present system, including in 1925, 1975, and 1994. The Society has (amazingly) admitted that "those ... who predicted an `end of the world,' even announcing a specific date .... Yet ... The `end' did not come ... were guilty of false prophesying":

"True, there have been those in times past who predicted an `end of the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The `end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them." ("A Time to `Lift Up Your Head' in Confident Hope," Awake, October 8, 1968, p.23).

and that "Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them"!

While it's a newer belief, about 500 Jehovah's Witnesses reside in Bowling Green, which is home to two meeting halls. About 30 years ago, one meeting hall in Park City served the entire area with an estimated 30 Jehovah's Witnesses, said Glen Pennington, an elder. Now, about 150 people pack the smaller of the two Kingdom Halls. In the brick building on Mount Olivet Road, people are singing upbeat songs, discussing the Bible, reading their study guides and mapping out their door-to-door ministries. In a tiny room, color-coded and numbered maps hang from the walls. It's where witnesses are assigned territories to cover. When they're baptized, Jehovah's Witnesses become ordained ministers and are expected to travel to homes, briefly speaking to residents. There's no clergy, but appointed elders organize events at each meeting hall, Pennington said.

The Watchtower's does have a "clergy." The "appointed elders" carry out all the roles that a clergyman fills in a Christian church. But if the claim is that Jehovah's Witnesses don't have a paid clergy then that just shows again that JWs don't believe that, "Your word [the Bible] is truth" ( Jn 17:17 NWT), but that the Watchtower overrides the Bible. Because the Bible, including the Watchtower's New World Translation, clearly teaches that it is right to have a paid clergy, i.e. "the Lord ordained for those proclaiming the good news to live by means of the good news":

1Cor 9:7,13-14 NWT. 7 Who is it that ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who shepherds a flock and does not eat some of the milk of the flock? ... 13 Do YOU not know that the men performing sacred duties eat the things of the temple, and those constantly attending at the altar have a portion for themselves with the altar? 14 In this way, too, the Lord ordained for those proclaiming the good news to live by means of the good news.

Pennington, of Bowling Green, has preached for decades. He's convinced many people to give Jehovah's Witnesses a try. And there are those who don't want to hear it. He's encountered angry dogs and surly people. When he witnessed in New York, a group of ministers would travel to some of the most dangerous neighborhoods. They never shied away from an area, he said. "Some people ... either they don't like people in general coming to their door or they may feel something about Jehovah's Witnesses that either they don't understand or want to deal with," he said. "So, we respect them."

There is no excuse for Christians not to be polite to JWs at their door. Indeed I want them to come to my door, but I am on their blacklist because I know too much about them. The reason why most people, including most Christians, in my experience, don't like JWs coming to their door is because nothing the average person (including the average Christian) says seems to make any difference to JWs.

In fact, there's one misconception about Jehovah's Witnesses that many agree is the biggest misunderstanding - the idea that they're not Christians. That's not true, they say. While they don't believe in the Christian trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, they have a firm belief in Jesus Christ.

The Society has admitted that "the Trinity [is] 'the fundamental doctrine of Christianity'":

"How Is the Trinity Explained? THE Roman Catholic Church states: `The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion ... Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: `the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity ... the Persons are co- eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.' - The Catholic Encyclopedia. Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity `the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,' even saying: `Christians are those who accept Christ as God.' In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: `God is triune ... The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.' Thus, the Trinity is considered to be `one God in three Persons.' Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity." ("Should You Believe in the Trinity?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1989, Reprinted, 2006, pp.3-4. Emphasis original).

Therefore for the Watchtower to claim that "they don't believe in the Christian trinity" but they are "Christians" is like someone claiming, "I don't believe in Allah but I am a Muslim"!

And as for "they have a firm belief in Jesus Christ," Pennington significantly omits to tell the journalist what that "firm belief in Jesus Christ" is. Because the Watchtower's "firm belief in Jesus Christ" is that he is Michael the archangel, not God as the Bible teaches (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20).

Also, if JWs were Christians then they would call themselves Jesus' witnesses, which is what Jesus commanded His followers to be, even in the JW's own Bible:

"You will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant parts of the earth." (Acts 1:8 NWT).

And then the Society would not have stated that JWs are "a people, not for the name of Jesus":

"By means of his written Word upon which the light of fulfilled prophecy was shining Jehovah led the remnant to appreciate more the importance and preciousness of his name. They came to appreciate that they were a people, not for the name of Jesus, but for the name of Jehovah ..." ("Of Which God Are You a Witness?" The Watchtower, February 15, 1964, pp.104-111, p.109).

Nor would the Society have reduced in its songbook the number of songs praising Jesus from "twice as many songs praising Jesus as ... songs praising Jehovah" down to where "Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus":

"In the songbook produced by Jehovah's people in 1905, there were twice as many songs praising Jesus as there were songs praising Jehovah God. In their 1928 songbook, the number of songs extolling Jesus was about the same as the number extolling Jehovah. But in the latest songbook of 1984 [Sing Praises to Jehovah], Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus." (WB&TS, 1988, "Revelation: Its Grand Climax At Hand!," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, p.36).

And I own a copy of the Society's 1984 songbook, "Sing Praises to Jehovah" and as the name implies, there are no songs in it praising Jesus!

"We talk about Jehovah God, because that's God the father's name," said Tammy Walters, a Jehovah's Witness from Bowling Green. "But Jesus is his son. We believe his sacrifice is the key to our salvation." They believe that Jesus is the head of God's heavenly government, which will soon rule the earth.

The Bible (including the NWT) says that Jesus being God's Son, means that He is "equal to God" the Father in nature:

Jn 5:18 NWT. On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

When that happens, God's people will be resurrected from the grave and live again on earth, they claim. "Many religions are heaven-oriented. That we're just here for a while, then we die and go to a better place," Pennington said. "We don't believe the Bible teaches that at all. The earth originally was man's home." That doesn't mean they don't believe in a type of heaven. Heaven is where God is, where he rules from. Only a select few will go there. The rest will simply be resurrected to live again on earth, Pennington said.

Actually JWs will not "be resurrected from the grave and live again on earth." Watchtower teaching is that everyone, including JWs, "cease to exist" (see next) when they die. And that dead JWs "do not exist except in God's memory":

"What beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses set them apart as different from other religions? ... (7) Death: They believe that the dead are conscious of absolutely nothing; that they are experiencing neither pain nor pleasure in some spirit realm; that they do not exist except in God's memory, so hope for their future life lies in a resurrection from the dead." ("Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, pp.199-201. Emphasis original).

Therefore what the Watchtower calls "resurrection from the dead" is actually a re-creation from God's memory:

"On the other hand, the Bible does contain accounts of dead people being restored to life. In the case of Lazarus, this happened after he had been dead for four days. (John 11:39, 43, 44) What, though, will happen to people who died hundreds or thousands of years ago? Does their prospect for future life require that God resurrect the selfsame body they had when they died? No. Such a thought is inconsistent with what happens to the atoms that make up a dead body. In time, some of these same atoms are absorbed by vegetation that, in turn, is consumed by other creatures and becomes part of their bodies. Does this mean that there is no hope for people long dead? No. The Creator of our vast universe has an awesome, unlimited memory. Within his perfect memory, he has the capacity to store the personality and genetic traits of any dead human he chooses to remember. Moreover, Jehovah God has the power to recreate a human body with the exact genetic code of a person who has lived before. He can also place within it the memory and personality of the one whom he remembers, such as Abraham." ("Your Dead Loved Ones-Where Are They?," The Watchtower, June 15, 1994, pp.3-4, p.4).

But that means that it won't be the Jehovah's Witnesses who will be "resurrected to live again on earth" but copies of them! So each JW is slaving away for the benefit of someone else: his/her copy who has done nothing to earn life on the JW Paradise Earth. An identical copy of an original is not that original.

They also don't believe in the traditional idea of hell - a place of fire and brimstone. The grave itself is the equivalent of hell, and the Bible compares death to sleep, not torment, they say. Those who remain dead in their graves after the resurrection period will stay in hell, according to their beliefs. "Everybody goes to hell when they die, even Jesus," said George Perry, an elder. "The Bible uses hell as a place to go when life ends, as we know it ... they're not tortured in hell fire. They just cease to exist."

See below on "fire and brimstone." The Watchtower's denial of conscious punishment in an afterlife, i.e. "hell," is another example of how it sets aside the Bible's clear teachings in favour of its own. The Watchtower's own NWT correctly translates Jesus' warning that we should "not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more" but rather we should "Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge•hen'na":

Lk 12:4-5 NWT 4 Moreover, I say to YOU, my friends, Do not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more. 5 But I will indicate to YOU whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge•hen'na. Yes, I tell YOU, fear this One

But , "If the Witnesses were correct, someone whose body had been killed would no longer exist, hence would have nothing to fear from men or from God. Once you pass out of existence, there is no longer anything that anyone can do to you" (my emphasis):

"Hell There can be no punishment after death in the Jehovah's Witness scheme of things because the dead cease to exist. They are gone, vanished without a trace. There is no soul or spirit remaining to experience punishment. If that were true, however, what sense would there be to this warning spoken by Jesus Christ? `And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.' (Luke 12:4-5) If the Witnesses were correct, someone whose body had been killed would no longer exist, hence would have nothing to fear from men or from God. Once you pass out of existence, there is no longer anything that anyone can do to you. You simply do not exist. However, Jesus warned that there is indeed more that God can do to a person after the person has been killed. What? God can cast the person into hell (Gehenna in Greek), Jesus said. The Watchtower Society has assured its followers that this does not involve anything unpleasant happening to a person after death; instead, it represents `complete and everlasting destruction' or `death from which there is no resurrection.' (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, page 87) If this were so, however, what reason would there be for someone to fear being thrown there after being killed-after already ceasing to exist, in the JW interpretation?" (Reed, 1998, p.133. Emphasis original).

They believe that people should continually work to stay in God's favor, so they try to be as unworldly as possible. Still, they partake in normal activities just like everyone else, they say. They get married, have families, go to school, play sports. They even believe it's OK to drink alcohol, but in moderation. In fact, some Jehovah's Witnesses are alcoholics, Pennington said.

It is interesting that Pennington admits that "some Jehovah's Witnesses are alcoholics." In fact, according an online audio testimony of a former JW elder, alcoholism is a major problem among JWs, including (if not especially) among JW elders.

Also, this "people should continually work to stay in God's favor" is revealing. The Watchtower officially denies it teaches salvation by works, but if JWs do not continually work on the Watchtower treadmill, they will be threatened with not surviving Armageddon and so not making it to the Paradise Earth. But JW can never feel that he or she has done enough to earn God's favor. And even if they did, they can never be sure that they will be in God's favor on the Day of Armageddon. But Christian (like me) believe the Bible that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works:

Eph 2:8-9 ESV. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast

But they're different in other ways, most notably their refusal to celebrate holidays and birthdays. They believe many holidays are actually rooted in evil and are not biblical - not even Easter or Christmas. "Christmas is simply not Christian," Pennington said. "There's nothing biblical (saying) to celebrate Christ's birth. Plus, Jesus was not born on Dec. 25." Furthermore, some claim Christmas originally was a pagan holiday. It was first observed during a celebration to a sun god, said Banks Crandell, a Jehovah's Witness.

It is true that "There's nothing biblical (saying) to celebrate Christ's birth." But it is also true that there is nothing Biblical saying not to celebrate Christ's birth. And the Bible does say that it is OK if "One [man] judges one day as above another":

Rom 14:5 NWT. One [man] judges one day as above another; another [man] judges one day as all others; let each [man] be fully convinced in his own mind.

which would include the day of Christ's birth, his own birthday, etc. And it is simply not true that there's nothing biblical about celebrating Christ's birth. The angels and shepherds celebrated Christ's birth (Lk 2:8-14) - see also below.

It is also false the claim that "Jesus was not born on Dec. 25." He may have been. See my series: "Was Jesus born on December 25?" Also it is false the claim that "Christmas originally was a pagan holiday" (see that same series). And even if December 25 was not the day of Jesus' birth and even if was originally a pagan holiday, the key word is "was." Christianity conquered Roman paganism and today millions celebrate December 25 as Christ's birth and comparatively few (if any) celebrate December 25 as "a celebration to a sun god".

There are other misconceptions, Crandell claims, such as the idea that Jesus died on a cross. He was crucified, but not on a cross - the cross is actually a traditional pagan symbol, Crandell said. "Jesus was never put on a cross," he said. "He was on a pole."

Again, it is false the Watchtower claim that "Jesus died ... not on a cross" but "on a pole." The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus died on a two-beamed wooden cross. See my (incomplete) series, "Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake!" Especially #2: Biblical:

  • A. According to Mt 27:37 NWT, the charge against Jesus was posted "above his HEAD" (not "above his HANDS");
  • B. According to Jn 20:25 NWT, Jesus had the "print of the NAILS" (plural) in His hands;
  • C. Jesus predicted the "sort of death" that Peter would die would be by him having to "stretch out" (Gk. ekteino) his hands (Jn 21:17-19 NWT); and
  • D. Jesus could not have walked to Golgotha "bearing the torture stake for himself" (Jn 19:17 NWT).

As for birthdays, there's nothing Christian about celebrating one's birth. Birthdays are mentioned in a few biblical scriptures, and each one happens during a terrible event, Jehovah's Witnesses claim. For example, Herod was celebrating his birthday when he ordered the beheading of John the Baptist. Another scripture tells the story of Pharaoh, who celebrated his birthday by executing his chief baker, they say.

Even if this were true (which it isn't - see below), it is a fallacious argument that: 1) Birthdays are mentioned in a few biblical scriptures; 2) a terrible event happened during each one; and 3) therefore celebrating birthdays is wrong. It is not the birthday that was wrong, it is the terrible event that happened during some (not all - see below) of the few recorded birthdays in the Bible.

The Bible does not draw the conclusion that celebrating birthdays is wrong. As we saw in Rom 14:5 NWT, if "One [man] judges one day as above another," which could be his own, or Jesus', birthday, "let each [man] be fully convinced in his own mind." So this is another Watchtower "tradition of men" by which it has set aside a "commandment of God" (Mk 7:7-8 NWT).

Besides, it is false that "a terrible event happens during each" birthday in the Bible. Job's son's regularly celebrated "each one on his own day" (Job 1:4 NWT), which in the case of Job "his day" was "the day ... on which I came to be born" (Job 3:1-3 NWT):

"Although the actual word `birthday' appears only in connection with Pharaoh and Herod in most translations, the Bible does contain reference to such celebrations in godly families. At Job 1:4, the JW New World Translation says of the patriarch Job, `And his sons went and held a banquet at the house of each one on his own day; and they sent and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them.' That his own day refers to each one's birthday becomes clear when we read further, `It was after this that Job opened his mouth and began to call down evil upon his day. Job now answered and said: 'Let the day perish on which I came to be born.' (Job 3:1-3) Thus, the Living Bible renders Job 1:4-5 this way: `Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday, he invited his brothers and sisters to his home for a celebration. On these occasions they would eat and drink with great merriment. When these birthday parties ended-and sometimes they lasted several days-Job would summon his children...' Furthermore, the Watchtower Society's own New World Translation reveals that the birth of John the Baptist was an occasion to be celebrated, when it records this angelic announcement: "And you will have joy and great gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth." (Luke 1:14)" (Reed, 1998, pp.47-48. Emphasis original).

And also there is "the birth of Christ, celebrated by the angels in song and much glory ... It was convenient to the WT to leave this very positive and important birthday out of their consideration, for it destroys their point in saying that all birthdays in the Bible were negative":

"Though the WT only admits to two birthdays being mentioned in the Bible, there are actually three [in fact four since `each one on his own day' (Job 1:4 NWT) means `on their birthdays' (NIV)] that were celebrated. There was the birthday of Pharaoh (Gen. 40:20), Herod (Matt. 14:6), and also the birth of Christ, celebrated by the angels in song and much glory: And the angel said to them, `Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord ... And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, `Glory to God in the highest, and on the earth peace among men with whom he is pleased.' (Luke 2:10,11,13,14) It was convenient to the WT to leave this very positive and important birthday out of their consideration, for it destroys their point in saying that all birthdays in the Bible were negative." (Watters, R., 1996, "Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses," [1987], Bethel Ministries: Manhattan Beach CA, Third edition, pp.77-78. Emphasis original).

Some Jehovah's Witnesses say it was difficult to give up those celebrations after converting. Peggy Ashley, for example, researched the idea after studying to become a Jehovah's Witness, she said. "Nothing was bad except Christmas," said Ashley, of Bowling Green. "We were brought up to believe in Christmas. When I started studying, I questioned that." But for firm believers, such as Ashley, it's the only way to live. Many spend any spare time witnessing to others or studying, and some dedicate their lives to the ministry.

Peggy, if you read this, please consider that the real reason the Watchtower won't let JWs celebrate birthdays, Christmas, and other holidays, is to cut them off from their non-JW family and friends, so that they become socially isolated, leaving the JWs increasingly under the control of the Watchtower:

"As the student begins to accept Watchtower teachings that Christmas, Easter, Mother's Day, and birthday celebrations are of pagan origin and therefore offensive to God, fellowship with non-JW family and friends on those occasions comes to an abrupt halt, and social interaction with non-Witnesses on other occasions becomes more difficult. Eventually outside friendships cease altogether for the fully committed Jehovah's Witness, and family ties outside the sect cool to the point that relatives feel the JW has become a stranger. This, too, is by design and is a key part of the mind-control process. The same sort of social isolation from outsiders that David Koresh's Branch Davidians (and certain other mind-control cults) imposed by physically removing members to a communal compound, the Watchtower organization imposes by erecting numerous invisible barriers:

  • objections to holidays and other occasions when families traditionally get together
  • rejection of tobacco smoking as extremely sinful, not just a health hazard
  • complete rejection of the political process so that even casting a ballot for the local dog catcher or high school class president can result in expulsion from the sect
  • classification of the flag salute, the pledge of allegiance, and rising for the national anthem as acts of religious idolatry, so that even attendance at sporting events becomes stressful and embarrassing
  • rejection of all non-JW religious services as satanic worship, so that Witnesses avoid church weddings and clergy-conducted funerals, even of close friends and relatives.
This social isolation is a key element, of mind control because it cuts off the sect member from the free flow of ideas that normally occur among friends or relatives. Once it is in place, only Watchtower ideas are heard and taken into the mind. If other opinions are encountered from outsiders at school or at a JW's place of employment, these are viewed with suspicion and contempt as coming from ungodly, `worldly' people who are no longer regarded as peers." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Blood on the Altar: Confessions of a Jehovah's Witness Minister," Prometheus: Amherst NY, pp.188-189).

When 14-year-old Keagan Zachary graduates high school, getting a job is not the priority. Instead, she wants to attend pioneer school, where she will become a full-time Jehovah's Witness minister, she said. Keagan, who is home-schooled, has already started her ministry. She travels door-to-door in an attempt to share her beliefs with others. It's always rewarding, but not always easy, she said."Sometimes it gets pretty ugly. Last month, a brother told me I was going to hell," Keagan said. "I tried to stay calm and not take it personally because they have their own beliefs."

Keagan, if you read this, that Christian who told you that you were "going to hell" was only telling you what the Bible says. Here are all the occurrences of "hell" (Gk. Gehenna) in the Bible, quoting from your own New World Translation:

Mt 5:22 However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, `You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Ge•hen'na.

Why would it matter whether Gehenna was "fiery" if when you die you "cease to exist" as the Watchtower teaches? If "The grave itself is the equivalent of hell" how can the grave be "fiery"?

Mt 5:29 If, now, that right eye of yours is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na.

Mk 9:47-48 47 And if your eye makes you stumble, throw it away; it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God than with two eyes to be pitched into Ge•hen'na, 48 where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out.

Why, if when you die you "cease to exist," would it be "more beneficial to you for one of your members" (such as "your right eye") to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na"? Wouldn't it be far worse to live with only one eye, than to cease to exist and "your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na," which is the equivalent of the grave? Why would one care what happened to one's body after one died and ceased to exist?

If "the grave itself is the equivalent of hell" (Gehenna), and it is a state of non-existence, how can Ge•hen'na be "where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out"? Is that not a picture of ongoing conscious "torment" rather than "sleep"?

Mt 5:30 Also, if your right hand is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost than for your whole body to land in Ge•hen'na.

Mk 9:43 "And if ever your hand makes you stumble, cut it off; it is finer for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go off into Ge•hen'na, into the fire that cannot be put out.

Why, if when you die you "cease to exist," would it be "more beneficial to you for one of your members" (such as "your right hand") to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na"? Wouldn't it be far worse to live with only one hand than to cease to exist and "your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na"? Why would one care what happened to one's body after one died and ceased to exist?

Mt 10:28 And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge•hen'na.

Lk 12:5 But I will indicate to YOU whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge•hen'na. Yes, I tell YOU, fear this One.

Why, if when you die you "cease to exist," should one "not become fearful of those who kill the body ... but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge•hen'na"? Why would one care of what happened after one died and ceased to exist? How could God "destroy both soul and body in Ge•hen'na" after one had died and ceased to exist?

Mt 18:9 Also, if your eye is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you; it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into life than to be thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na.

Again, why, if when you die you "cease to exist," would it be "finer for you to enter one-eyed into life than to be thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na"? Wouldn't it be far worse to live with only one eye than to cease to exist and be "thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na"? How could one be non-existent and be "thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na"?

Mt 23:15 "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one YOU make him a subject for Ge•hen'na twice as much so as yourselves.

Again, why would it matter to a Pharisee if he or his convert was "subject for Ge•hen'na" if Gehenna is only the equivalent of the grave, where one ceased to exist, as the Watchtower teaches?

Mt 23:33 "Serpents, offspring of vipers, how are YOU to flee from the judgment of Ge•hen'na?

Why would the Pharisees "flee from the judgment of Ge•hen'na" if Gehenna is only the equivalent of the grave, where one ceased to exist, as the Watchtower teaches?

Jas 3:6 Well, the tongue is a fire. The tongue is constituted a world of unrighteousness among our members, for it spots up all the body and sets the wheel of natural life aflame and it is set aflame by Ge•hen'na.

Again, if "the grave itself is the equivalent of hell" (Gehenna), comparable to sleep, not torment, why the mention of it being "aflame"?

Keagan, while it is usually good to not "take it personally," Jesus wants you to "take it personally." Also, as the above Bible verses show, "Hell" (Gk. Gehenna) is not merely the Christian's "own beliefs." And it is not the equivalent of the grave. The Bible's linking of Gehenna with fire shows that it is a place or state of conscious "torment," not "sleep".

The words "fire and brimstone" are not a Christian invention, but a Christian translation of the Greek words puri kai theio, "fire and sulfur," as found around the brim of active volcanoes, hence the term "brimstone" in the KJV (e.g. Lk 17:29; Rev 9:17,18; 14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8). And your own NWT confirms that unbelievers after they die, "shall be tormented with fire and sulphur":

Rev 14:9-10 NWT. 9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the wild beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10 he will also drink of the wine of the anger of God that is poured out undiluted into the cup of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb.

Rev 21:8 NWT. But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death."

So Keagan, which will you believe? The Watchtower Society or the Bible? The decision is yours but so are the consequences.

Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

Monday, January 16, 2012

Jesus is Jehovah!: 3B. Jesus claimed and accepted the titles "Lord" and "God" of Himself

This is my part #9, "3B, "Jesus claimed and accepted the titles `Lord' and `God' of Himself," which is part of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" (by topic), which in turn is based on my morning `quiet

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Incredulity of Saint Thomas" (1601-1602), by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Wikipedia.]

time' Bible reading. The previous post in this series was part #8, "3. Jesus claimed to be Jehovah: 3A. Jesus claimed to be `I AM.'." See the Contents page for more details of this series. I am using the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible, unless otherwise indicated. I have quoted the verses which support each topic, and I have provided quotes under only some of those verses as added support.


JESUS IS JEHOVAH!
© Stephen E. Jones

Jesus is Jehovah!: Contents

3. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE JEHOVAH

B. Jesus claimed and/or accepted the titles "Lord" and "God" of Himself

i. Jesus accepted the title "my Lord" (Gk. ho kurios) of Himself (Jn 20:28).

Jn 20:24-29. 24Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." 26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

"John 20:28 [NWT]`In answer Thomas said to him: `My Lord and my God!' (NWT)' Yes, this verse actually appears in the Jehovah's Witness Bible!":

"John 20:28 `In answer Thomas said to him: `My Lord and my God!' (NWT)' Yes, this verse actually appears in the Jehovah's Witness Bible! ... Thomas, although doubting longer than the other apostles, finally came to accept Christ as Lord and God-not `a god' as Watchtower leaders have mistranslated John 1:1 to read in their Bible, but `God,' as his words show. Jehovah's Witnesses find this verse very difficult to deal with because they do not want to admit the simple fact that it declares Christ's deity. ... the ... JW may try to brush it off by saying, `Thomas was just exclaiming his surprise. If we saw a friend return from the dead, we, too, might say, `Oh! My God!' out of sheer surprise. Thomas didn't mean anything by it.' If a Witness takes this approach, we should ask him, `Do you mean that Thomas was using God's name in vain? That would be blasphemy! Thomas certainly wouldn't do that.' Then point out that in the next verse [Jn 20:29] Jesus commented on what Thomas has said. If Thomas had said `God' in vain, Jesus would surely have rebuked him for it, but, instead, he acknowledged that Thomas had finally `believed.' Believed what? That Jesus Christ is both Lord and God! ... Since the Witnesses refer to Jesus as `a god' in contrast with the Father, whom they call `the God,' you may wish to have the JW look up John 20:28 in his own Kingdom Interlinear (1985) Bible. The word-for-word English under the Greek text shows that Thomas literally called Jesus, `The Lord of me and the God of me!'" (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.83-84. Emphasis original).

"Thomas used. He said `ho theos' the phrase that the WBTS say is used exclusively of Jehovah God. Jesus is called not just `a god' but `the God'":

"John 20:28 ... This is the second time that Jesus has appeared to the disciples but the first time that Thomas sees Him. His immediate response is to acknowledge Jesus as my Lord and my God. Again this seems fairly clear until we realise that the Witness has been taught that either Thomas got so excited he blasphemed or he said my Lord looking at Jesus and My God looking up to Jehovah in heaven. Read and explain the verse carefully. First it clearly says Thomas said to Him (Jesus) both statements. Second ask the Witness what their KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation] shows for the words Thomas used. He said `ho theos' the phrase that the WBTS say is used exclusively of Jehovah God. Jesus is called not just `a god' but `the God'. Indeed Thomas literally says, `the God of me.' If this were not true He would have had to rebuke Thomas in verse 29. Rather though he commends all those who will believe the same as Thomas believed. In the midst of those who would go out to teach the early church, Jesus accepts the acclamation that He was God." (Harris, D. & Browning, B., 1993, "Awake to the Watchtower," [1988], Reachout Trust: London, Revised, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

"... Thomas was finally overwhelmed with the evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, he cried out, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation employs a capital `G.' Their Scriptures unmistakably call Jesus Jehovah God, the God (ho theos)":

"In the second place any Christian can point out to Jehovah's Witnesses that the word for `God' (theos) without the definite article ('the') is often used for Jehovah God. He may show this to a Witness in the New World Translation itself. That version translates theos without the article by `God,' with a capital `G' in John 1:6, 12, 13; 3:2, 21! Third, any Christian can show a Jehovah's Witness the fact that some passages do designate Jesus as `the' God, using the definite article (ho) with `God' (theos). According to Matthew 1:23 the birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophetic announcement that the virgin born son should be called Immanuel, `which means when translated, `With us is God.' ` Note the capital `G' which, according to the New World translators, denotes Jehovah God, the God (ho theos) ! Again, when skeptical Thomas was finally overwhelmed with the evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, he cried out, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation employs a capital `G.' Their Scriptures unmistakably call Jesus Jehovah God, the God (ho theos). Furthermore, the same version represents Jesus as accepting the worship of Thomas and commending all who share his faith. `Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe" (v. 29 NWT)." (Lewis, G.R., 1966, "The Bible, the Christian and Jehovah's Witnesses," Presbyterian & Reformed: Phillipsburg NJ, Reprinted, 1980, pp.14-15. Verse typo corrected).

"If Thomas called the risen Christ Jehovah (definite article), `O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou,' and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it ... then no juggling of the text ... can offset the basic thought, namely, Jesus Christ is Jehovah God!":

"No treatment of the deity of Christ would be complete without mentioning the greatest single testimony recorded in the Scriptures. John 20:28 presents that testimony. ... `Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God.' ... Jehovah's Witnesses have vainly striven to elude this text ... but they have unknowingly corroborated its authority beyond refutation .... In .... Jn 20:28 ... O Theos mou, literally `The God of me,' or `my God,' signifies Jehovahistic identity, and since it is in possession of the definite article, to use Jehovah's Witnesses' own argument, it must therefore mean `the only true God' (Jehovah), not `a god.' On page 776 of the New World Translation (Appendix), the author of the note states, `So too John 1:1, uses O THEOS to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word (Logos) as `a god,' `the only begotten God' as John 1:18 calls him.' Now let us reflect on this. If Thomas called the risen Christ Jehovah (definite article), `O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou,' and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it by saying, `Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; Blessed are they not having seen yet have believed' (v. 29), then no juggling of the text in context can offset the basic thought, namely, Jesus Christ is Jehovah God!" (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, pp.64-66. Emphasis original).

See also below under "ii. Jesus accepted the title `God' of Himself" and "ii. b. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas if he was wrong,"

a. Jesus claimed and accepted the title "the Lord" (Gk. ho kurios) of Himself.

Jn 13:13. You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am.

"Lord (Ho Kurios). .... For I am (eimi gar). Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense":

"[Jn 13:13] Ye (humeis). Emphatic. Call me (phoneite me). `Address me.' Phoneo regular for addressing one with his title (1:48). Master (Ho didaskalos). Nominative form (not in apposition with me accusative after phoneite), but really vocative in address with the article (called titular nominative sometimes) like Ho Kurios kai ho theos mou in 20:28. `Teacher.' See 11:28 for Martha's title for Jesus to Mary. Lord (Ho Kurios). Another and separate title. In 1:38 we have Didaskale (vocative form) for the Jewish Rabbei and in 9:36, 38 Kurie for the Jewish Mari. It is significant that Jesus approves (kalos, well) the application of both titles to himself as he accepts from Thomas the terms kurios and theos. For I am (eimi gar). Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense, at the very moment when he has rendered this menial, but symbolic, service to them. Here is a hint for those who talk lightly about `the peril of worshipping Jesus!'" (Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.240. Emphasis original).

"When Jesus said to his disciples that they rightly regarded him as their 'Lord' he implied they were beginning to realize that he was much more than a person deserving respect":

"[Jn 13:13] ... Jesus continued, You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord', and rightly so, for that is what I am. ... Jesus is also addressed or spoken of as 'Lord' (kyrios) many times in the Fourth Gospel. Sometimes kyrios is translated correctly as `Sir', a term of respectful address, when used by people who did not realize, or had not yet realized, who he was ... In other places kyrios is translated correctly as 'Lord', when something more than respectful address was intended by those using it, such as the evangelist himself (6:23; 11:2; 20:20; 21:12), Peter (6:68; 13:6, 9, 36, 37; 21:15,16, 17, 21), the man born blind (9:38), Mary and/or Martha (11:3, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39), the disciples as a group (11:2; 20:25), the beloved disciple (13:25; 21:7, 20), Thomas (14:5; 20:28), Philip (14:8), Judas, not Iscariot (14:22) and Mary Magdalene (20:2, 13, 18). When Jesus said to his disciples that they rightly regarded him as their 'Lord' he implied they were beginning to realize that he was much more than a person deserving respect; he deserved their obedience as well." (Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.283-284. Emphasis original. Verse typos corrected).

"Also they were right in addressing him as Lord (ho kurios); and the deeper the meaning they poured into this concept, the more right they were. He was, indeed, the owner of all things (see on 13:1, 3); moreover, he was equal in essence and authority with God, the Father":

"[Jn 13:13] `You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am.' Indeed, the disciples were right in addressing Jesus as Teacher (ho didaskalos, probably to be regarded as a translation of the Aramaic Rabbi; as 1:38 seems to indicate), for his teaching `with authority and not as the scribes' was the greatest that was ever heard on earth. Also they were right in addressing him as Lord (ho kurios); and the deeper the meaning they poured into this concept, the more right they were. He was, indeed, the owner of all things (see on 13:1, 3); moreover, he was equal in essence and authority with God, the Father." (Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1954], Banner of Truth: London, Third edition, Vol. 2, pp.234-235. Emphasis original).

Jn 13:14. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.

Mt 21:1-3 1Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once."

"[Mt 21:3] The Lord (ho kurios). .... In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. ... of God (Matt. 1:20; 11:25), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 10:36). ... the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. ... the disciples were calling Jesus `Lord' and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here":

"[Mt 21:3] The Lord (ho kurios). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from kuros, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matt. 10:24), of the harvest (9:38), of the vineyard (20:8), of the emperor (Acts 13:27), of God (Matt. 1:20; 11:25), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 10:36). Note Matt. 8:25. This is the only time in Matthew where the words ho kurios are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in 28:6. ... the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus `Lord' and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here." (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume I: The Gospel According to Matthew & The Gospel According to Mark," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, pp.167-168. Italics original. Verse typo corrected).

"Note especially that Jesus is here using the title `Lord' to designate himself (see Matt. 11:27; 28:18)":

"[Mt 21:3] ... And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, The Lord needs them, and immediately he will let them go. Note especially that Jesus is here using the title `Lord' to designate himself (see Matt. 11:27; 28:18). It is clear, therefore, that this epithet was not an invention of the early church after Christ's departure. It was not something borrowed from a non- Christian culture. It came from the very mouth of Jesus! Note also `the' Lord, not merely `your' Lord; rather, the Lord of all, with the right to claim all for his own use. Jesus predicts that when his claim, by mouth of the two men, is asserted, the owners will immediately release the animals. These owners must have been friends and followers of the Lord." (Hendriksen, W., 1974, "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, Reprinted, 1982, pp.763-764).

"[Mt 21:3] Jesus plainly refers to himself as the Lord [ho kurios], the sovereign orchestrator of these events." (Wilkins, M.J., 2007, "Matthew," in "The ESV Study Bible," Crossway Bibles: Wheaton IL, p.1865).

Mk 11:2-3. 2and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. 3If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.'"

Lk 19:30-32. 30saying, "Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here. 31If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' you shall say this: 'The Lord has need of it.'" 32So those who were sent went away and found it just as he had told them.

"`Lord' ... [Mk 11:2-3; Lk 19:30-32] ... the natural way to take `Lord' is Jesus' way of referring to himself. ... the church's ascription of `Lord' to Jesus in a full christological sense finds its roots in Jesus' self-references":

"[Mt 21:3] `Lord' (also Mark-Luke [Mk 11:2-3; Lk 19:30-32]) might mean `owner'; but then the disciples' response would be untrue, unless Jesus owned the animals, which is extremely unlikely. The title might refer to Yahweh-the animals are needed in Yahweh's service. But the natural way to take `Lord' is Jesus' way of referring to himself. This step is not out of keeping with the authority he has already claimed for himself and fits this late period of his ministry, when he revealed himself with increasing clarity. ... even the church's ascription of `Lord' to Jesus in a full christological sense finds its roots in Jesus' self-references." (Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.437).

Acts 9:4-5 4And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 5And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Acts 22:8. And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.'

Acts 26:15. And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord [ho kurios]. said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.

"The voice from the glory could only be the voice of God; hence Lord in Paul's question, Who are you, Lord? (5), is meant as a divine title, not as a mere courtesy `Sir'" ... Saul had to identify the Lord Jehovah of the OT whom he zealously sought to serve, with Jesus of Nazareth":

"[Acts 9:3-6] The encounter (3-6). The lightning-swift light (so the verb), brighter than Syria's noonday sun, could only be the shekinah glory, indicative of the divine presence. From this glory came the amazing question: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Who was the person who spoke thus? The voice from the glory could only be the voice of God; hence Lord in Paul's question, Who are you, Lord? (5), is meant as a divine title, not as a mere courtesy `Sir'. I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting was the answer-a revelation which meant that, in one tremendous moment of time, Saul had to identify the Lord Jehovah of the OT whom he zealously sought to serve, with Jesus of Nazareth whom he ferociously persecuted in the person of His saints. The shock to his innermost soul was tremendous and showed itself physically in the loss of sight; but once the identification had been made Saul had no doubts or reserves, and from that time forward could truthfully say: `For to me, to live is Christ' (Phil. 2:21). NIV preserves the true text of this narrative, but the added details of the later narratives should be noted. Paul's companions `felt' the celestial presence but did not see the Lord; they heard Saul's voice, but not that of the Lord (7; 22:9)." (Trenchard, E.H., "Acts," in Bruce, F.F., ed., 1986, "The International Bible Commentary," [1979], Marshall Pickering / Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1994, p.1284. Emphasis original).

"Saul's answer, `Who are you, Lord?' (v. 5), in all likelihood implies recognition of the divine presence, since the words had come from heaven":

"Saul's conversion occurs on the road to Damascus, one of the world's oldest cities, located in Syria. His experience involves a light from heaven which temporarily leaves him blind. This light may be the glory of Christ, usually veiled during his earthly ministry, and revealed at the transfiguration for a few brief moments (Matt. 17:1-8). Saul hears a voice from the Lord, and a brief dialogue takes place. In Acts 22:9 Luke states that Saul's companions did not hear (NIV understand) the voice, and in 26:14 he says that only Saul heard the voice, but in 9:7 he says that his companions heard the voice (Gk. phone in all of these cases). The New International Version rightly translates the word `sound' (v. 7), and this indicates the legitimate range of meaning which the word can have. In other words, everyone heard a sound, but only Saul understood the words. Saul's answer, `Who are you, Lord?' (v. 5), in all likelihood implies recognition of the divine presence, since the words had come from heaven, but until the voice is identified as the voice of Jesus whom Saul is persecuting, there is no recognition of identity. This, along with Saul's obedience to the command to `go into the city, and ... be told what [he] must do' (v. 6), is evidence of conversion or confessing Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9)." (Baker, W.H., "Acts," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1989, "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, p.897. Emphasis original).

b. Jesus claimed and accepted the title "Lord" of Himself.

Mt 7:21. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

"Were we to take seriously the hypothesis of an original New Testament text containing the tetragram, Matthew 7:21-22 would be a clear candidate for `restoring' the divine name YHWH, since the doubled kurie kurie evidently originated from Greek-speaking Jews translating `Lord YHWH' and `YHWH Lord'":

"Early in his ministry, Jesus warned that even those who said to him `Lord, Lord' (kurie, kurie) and claimed to do miracles in his name were condemned if they disobeyed him (Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46; see also Matt. 25:11). This doubled form of address occurs repeatedly in the Septuagint in place of the Hebrew `Lord YHWH' (Deut. 3:24; 9:26; 1 Kings 8:53; Ps. 69:6; Ezek. 20:49; Amos 7:2, 5) or `YHWH Lord' (Pss. 109:21; 140:7; 141:8), but never in reference to anyone but YHWH. ... Were we to take seriously the hypothesis of an original New Testament text containing the tetragram, Matthew 7:21-22 would be a clear candidate for `restoring' the divine name YHWH, since the doubled kurie kurie evidently originated from Greek-speaking Jews translating `Lord YHWH' and `YHWH Lord.'" (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, pp.159, 337 n.13).

"It is doubtful whether all who called Jesus `Lord' thought of him as deity, but on numerous occasions there can be no question that they did ( Matt. 7:21f. ...):

"Christ is called Lord. In the New Testament the Greek term is used in four ways. It is used of God the Father ( Matt. 4:7; 11:25; Luke 2:29; Acts 2:17:24; Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 6:17f.; Rev. 4:8), as a title of courtesy (Matt. 13:27; 21:29; 27:63; Luke 13:8; John 12:21), as a name for a master or owner (Matt. 20:8; Luke 12:46; John 15:15; Col. 4:1), and as a title of address to, or as a name for, Christ (Matt. 7:22; 8:2; 14:28; Mark 7:28). It is doubtful whether all who called Jesus `Lord' thought of him as deity, but on numerous occasions there can be no question that they did ( Matt. 7:21f.; Luke 1:43; 2:11; John 20:28; Acts 16:31; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). The title `Lord,' as it is often used of Jesus, is the translation of the Hebrew name Jehovah. Thus, Christ is identified with the Jehovah of the Old Testament (cf. John 12:40f.; Rom. 10:9, 13; and 1 Pet. 3:15 with Isa. 6:1ff.; Joel 2:32; and Isa. 8:13 respectively)." (Thiessen, H.C. & Doerksen, V.D., "Lectures in Systematic Theology," [1949], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1977, Revised, pp.94-95).

Mt 8:25. "And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing."

Mt 14:30. "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

"Peter tried to walk on the sea ... but when he lost faith and started to sink, he also cried out, `Lord, save me!' (kurie, soson me, Matt. 14:30). ... the words of a Psalm directed to God: `O LORD, save now' (o kurie, soson de, Ps. 118:25":

"On one occasion, Jesus had fallen asleep while out in a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee with some of his disciples. When a severe storm threatened to capsize the boat, the men woke Jesus up, saying, `Lord, save us!' (kurie, soson, Matt. 8:25). On another occasion, Peter tried to walk on the sea after seeing Jesus do it, but when he lost faith and started to sink, he also cried out, `Lord, save me!' (kurie, soson me, Matt. 14:30). They may not have intended to do so, but the disciples' cries to the Lord Jesus for help recall the words of a Psalm directed to God: `O LORD, save now' (o kurie, soson de, Ps. 118:25, translating literally)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, p.160).

Mt 25:11. "Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'.

Lk 6:46. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

ii. Jesus accepted the title "God" of Himself.

a. Jesus accepted the title "my God" (Gk. ho theos) of Himself (Jn 20:28).

"But in at least eight passages the clear weight of relevant evidence supports our reading them as straightforward assertions of the deity of Christ: ...`Thomas answered, "My Lord and my God!" ' (Jn. 20:28)":

"DIRECT STATEMENTS OF DEITY The texts which assert the deity of Christ are predictably among the most debated in the entire NT. In several the grammatical evidence calls for hesitation before interpreting them as assertions of Christ's Godhood. But in at least eight passages the clear weight of relevant evidence supports our reading them as straightforward assertions of the deity of Christ: `Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!' (Rom. 9:5) `About the Son he [God] says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever".' (Heb. 1:8) `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' (Jn. 1:1-2) 'No-one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' (Jn. 1:18) `The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.' (Tit. 2:13) `Thomas answered, "My Lord and my God!" ' (Jn. 20:28) `The righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.' (2 Pet. 1:1) `The church of God, which he bought with his own blood.' (Acts 20:28) The NT contains numerous other verses which possibly, though not definitely, imply the deity of Christ (e.g., Mt . 1:23; Jn. 17:3; Col. 2:2; 2 Thes. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:17; Jas. 1:1; 1 Jn. 5:20). The eight texts quoted above are sufficient to establish the biblical position beyond doubt; there is, however, much more material." (Milne, B., 1982, "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fifth printing, 1988, p.128-129. Emphasis original).

"... my God' (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself":

"Jesus as `My God' in the Climax of John's Gospel (John 20:28). Although the Gospel of John has 21 chapters, the climax of the Gospel comes at the end of chapter 20, when the apostle Thomas confesses Jesus as his Lord and God (v. 28) ... There is essentially no controversy among biblical scholars that in John 20:28 Thomas is referring to and addressing Jesus when he says, `My Lord and my God!' ... Indeed, it is difficult to find any contemporary exegetical commentary or academic study that argues that Thomas's words in John 20:28 apply in context to the Father rather than to Jesus. The reason is simple: John prefaces what Thomas said with the words, `Thomas answered and said to Him' (v. 28a NASB). ... It is therefore certain that Thomas was directing his words to Jesus, not to the Father. ... Thomas's words echo statements addressed in the Psalms to the Lord (Jehovah), especially the following: `Wake up! Bestir yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and my Lord [ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou]!' (Ps. 35:23). These words parallel those in John 20:28 exactly except for reversing `God' and `Lord.' More broadly, in biblical language `my God' (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.142-143. Emphasis original).

"Thus Jesus ... willingly receives divine homage (John 20:28-29)":

"Such passages as these (and it should be emphasized that they constitute merely a sampling chosen out of many others of similar import) agree with the representation throughout the Gospels that Jesus both claimed and exercised the prerogatives of the Lord God himself. Thus Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:10, etc.), raises the dead (Luke 7:12-15, etc.), controls nature (Matt. 8:26), will judge the secret motives of men (Matt. 7:22-28), and willingly receives divine homage (John 20:28-29). The statement, therefore, in John 10:30, `I and the Father are one,' is but the epitome of the constant claim of Jesus. As has often been pointed out, Jesus' statement is either true or false. If it is true, then he is God. If it is false, he either knew it to be false or he did not know it to be false. If while claiming to be God he knew this claim to be false, he was a liar. If while claiming to be God he did not know this claim to be false, he was demented. There is no other alternative." (Metzger, B.M., 1953, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Reprint of article in Theology Today, April, pp.65-85, p.74).

"Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article [ho theos "the God"] in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20)"

"First of all, it must be remembered that what is indefinite in Greek need not-and sometimes must not-be translated with an indefinite article in English. The reason why it would be incorrect to translate theos `a god' shall be made clear as we progress; the fact is that such a rendering is not necessitated by theos being indefinite. Second, the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistic. This does not mean that theos cannot ever be definite when applied to Christ, nor does it mean that Christ cannot be called theos with the definite article ho. Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). It is true, however, that none of these passages calls Christ simply ho theos without qualification, evidently because this expression was so firmly associated with the person of the Father. Thus he is called `my God,' `our God and Savior,' `our great God and Savior,' and `the true God and eternal life'-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament, but all avoiding identifying him as the person of the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, p.41. Emphasis original).

"Thus he [Jesus] is called `my God,' [Jn 20:28] `our God and Savior,' [2Pet 1:1] `our great God and Savior,' [Tit 2:13] and `the true God and eternal life' [1Jn 5:20]-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament":

"First of all, it must be remembered that what is indefinite in Greek need not-and sometimes must not-be translated with an indefinite article in English. The reason why it would be incorrect to translate theos `a god' shall be made clear as we progress; the fact is that such a rendering is not necessitated by theos being indefinite. Second, the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistic. This does not mean that theos cannot ever be definite when applied to Christ, nor does it mean that Christ cannot be called theos with the definite article ho. Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). It is true, however, that none of these passages calls Christ simply ho theos without qualification, evidently because this expression was so firmly associated with the person of the Father. Thus he is called `my God,' `our God and Savior,' `our great God and Savior,' and `the true God and eternal life'-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament, but all avoiding identifying him as the person of the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, p.41. Emphasis original).

b. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas if he was wrong, but instead Jesus blessed Thomas for his insight.

"Thomas ... did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing":

"[Jn 20:28] My Lord and my God (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing." (Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.316. Emphasis original).

"Here was a monotheistic Jew saying to Jesus: `My God!' The fact that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas but commended him for his faith proves decisively that Jesus was equal to the Father, that He was Himself very God!":

"All these instances in which Jesus was worshiped come to a climax in the adoration of Thomas recorded in John 20:28. When Thomas saw Jesus the week after he had expressed disbelief in Jesus' resurrection, he said to Him, `My Lord and my God!' (NWT). If Jesus were not God, he should have rebuked Thomas at this point. Instead of rebuking him, however, Jesus praised Thomas, saying, `Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe' (v. 29, NWT). Surely here is indisputable proof that Jesus recognized Himself to be God and not only permitted but encouraged believers to worship Him as such! ... (1) What can the expression `my God' possibly mean other than `my true God'? ... the New Testament recognizes no true God beside Jehovah God; any god other than Jehovah is for New Testament writers a false god or an idol. Thomas, being a Jew, was a strict monotheist; for him there was no God beside Jehovah. When he said, `my God,' he could have meant nothing other than `my one and only true God.' (2) .... Here was a monotheistic Jew saying to Jesus: `My God!' The fact that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas but commended him for his faith proves decisively that Jesus was equal to the Father, that He was Himself very God!" (Hoekema, A.A., 1972, "Jehovah's Witnesses," [1963], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1990, pp.139-140. Emphasis original).

"`Thomas answered and said to Him, `My Lord and My God'. And our Lord did not restrain him nor rebuke him, He received this as His rightful designation":

"Among the disciples was one who refused to believe in the resurrection of Christ without tangible proof. For him the witness of others was not sufficient in a matter of such momentous consequence. He demanded nothing less than positive proof within the domain of his own senses. When Our Lord appeared to Him, He did not rebuke him for his scepticism, rather He readily provided the kind of proof asked for. His confession, in words expressing the ultimate in Christian faith, could not have been a consequence of seeing someone risen from the dead, for he must surely have seen the risen Lazarus. There is no mistaking their intent: `Thomas answered and said to Him, `My Lord and My God'. And our Lord did not restrain him nor rebuke him, He received this as His rightful designation (John 20:24-29)." (Bruce, F.F. & Martin, W.J., 1964, "The Deity of Christ," North of England Evangelical Trust: Manchester UK, pp.20-21. Emphasis original).

"... contrary to the claim of the Watchtower Society-theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is indeed used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One example of this is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God!' The verse reads literally from the Greek, `The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me'":

"Christ Is Definitely God As if all that weren't enough to prove the deity of Christ in John 1:1, it is also critical to note that-contrary to the claim of the Watchtower Society-theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is indeed used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One example of this is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God!' The verse reads literally from the Greek, `The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me.' Clearly, Christ is just as much God as the Father is. Other examples of ho theos ('the God') being used of Christ include Matthew 1:23 and Hebrews 1:8. We see again, then, that the same words used of the Father's deity are used in reference to Jesus' deity. Ask... o If theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is used in the New Testament of Jesus Christ just as it is used of Jehovah-God, then doesn't this mean Jesus is just as much God as the Father is?" (Rhodes, R., 1993, " Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.109-110. Emphasis original).

"It would be ... blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he were wrong. ... but in fact he accepts Thomas's profession of faith that he is God in the next verse":

"My Lord and My God! (John 20:28) In John 20:28 Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God,' which in the Greek is `Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou' Translated literally, the sentence reads, `The Lord of me and the God of me.' It would be nothing short of blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he were wrong. Jesus does nothing of the sort, but in fact he accepts Thomas's profession of faith that he is God in the next verse: `Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.' [Jn 20:29 ] This is especially significant because the Watchtower teaches that the Greek phrase ho Theos ('the God') is used in Scripture to refer to the true God, as opposed to lesser gods. Yet here ho Theos is applied directly to Jesus, showing on the Watchtower's own logic that Jesus is the God, and not just a god. This creates a major theological problem for the Watchtower. To try to explain this verse, the claim is made that Thomas's statement was merely an exclamatory expression of praise directed to the Father. Yet the Watchtower's own NWT refutes this notion, as this verse clearly states that Thomas directed his words to Jesus: `In answer, Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"' (emphasis added)." (Evert, J., "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," Catholic Answers: El Cajon CA, 2001, p.78. Emphasis original).

"... when Thomas worshiped Jesus as `My Lord and my God' he was in effect committing blasphemy for which Christ would have immediately rebuked him, unless what Thomas was saying was true, namely, that Jesus was his Lord and his God, Jehovah, the Son":

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God (John 20:28). Most all students of Scripture are familiar with so-called `doubting Thomas' who refused to believe that Jesus Christ had risen from the grave until he had thrust his finger into the wounds of Christ's hands and his hand into Christ's open side, a statement he later deeply regretted. John records for us in the 20th chapter how the Lord Jesus appeared after His resurrection in a physical form and then singling out Thomas offered His resurrection body as proof that He had truly vanquished the grave as a man and had risen in a bodily form. Thomas, it will be noted, wasted no time in doing what any human being would do when confronted with such divine evidence, he uttered the immortal phrase, `My Lord and my God,' worshiping at the feet of his risen Saviour, and giving to Jesus Christ adoration and homage as `God manifest in the flesh.' Now if Jehovah's Witnesses honestly want to be realistic, they will have to recognize two facts: First, Jesus appeared in physical form bearing the marks which He received upon the Cross-inescapable evidence that His was a bodily resurrection, not a spirit resurrection as they attempt to teach. Second, the Witnesses will also have to admit that under Mosaic law no one is entitled to warship but Jehovah Himself (Exodus 20); therefore, when Thomas worshiped Jesus as `My Lord and my God' he was in effect committing blasphemy for which Christ would have immediately rebuked him, unless what Thomas was saying was true, namely, that Jesus was his Lord and his God, Jehovah, the Son. Since Jesus did not rebuke him, but instead continued on to teach His disciples more of His Identity and plans, the argument of the Watch Tower crumbles before this revelation of Scriptural truth. With Thomas then all true Christians can echo of the Lord Jesus Christ, `My Lord and my God.'" (Martin, W.R., "Jehovah's Witnesses," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, 1957, Reprinted, 1969, pp.37-38. Emphasis original).

See also the future "5. JEHOVAH'S NAMES AND TITLES ARE APPLIED TO JESUS": "A. Jesus is `Lord'" and "B. Jesus is `God'".


My next post in this series will be part #10, "3C. Jesus claimed and accepted the title of The Son of God of Himself."

Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin