Being evasive is not going to work-circular reasoning, and very familiar with that.
Do read the other posts and links I have send you.
Blessings
Johann.
Who did Jesus Die a Ransom for?
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do read the other posts and links I have send you.
Blessings
Johann.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Its not dogmatic to be confident about what you believe. Anyone can argue and sound convincing...but no amount of argument will make something that is not true into something that is.
The son of God was a unique creation in that this being was the only direct creation of his Father....that is what makes him “firstborn of ALL creation”. The concept of agency is lost if we include Jesus as the God who created all things......How does God create “through” himself and for himself”? He used his son in creation as it says in Genesis....He and his Father are the “us” and “our” in the creation account.
Proverbs 8 is accepted by scholars as referring to Jesus in his pre-human form....
Vs 22-23....
“Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,
The earliest of his achievements of long ago.
23 From ancient times I was installed,
From the start, from times earlier than the earth”. . . . .
Vs 29-31....
“When he set a decree for the sea
That its waters should not pass beyond his order,
When he established the foundations of the earth,
30 Then I was beside him as a master worker.
I was the one he was especially fond of day by day;
I rejoiced before him all the time;
31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth,
And I was especially fond of the sons of men.”
I accept what the scriptures tell me.....what about you? It seems to me that being shown clearly what the scriptures tell us about God and about Jesus and his elect is annoying to a lot of people....that is not my problem, just as it wasn’t Jesus’ problem either. He offered his truth on a take it or leave it basis....so do I.
I have nothing to “prove” to those who do not allow the words of the Bible to state what is an inconvenient truth to them. There is nothing presented to me so far that does not have a scriptural answer that agrees with all that the Bible teaches.
I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and I attend the Kingdom Hall for my meetings for Bible education every week. We are a knowledge based faith that relies solely on the Bible for our beliefs and we have no affiliation whatsoever with Christendom.
I am not buying or selling anything....just presenting the truth as I understand it......what people do with that is up to them.....I have no responsibility other than to present the message that Christ commanded to be offered to all.....we do that in the same way that Jesus taught his apostles to preach his message. (Matt 10: 11-14; Acts 20:20) The “great commission” as it is called is important because Jesus commanded it to be done “in all the inhabited earth” which requires a global brotherhood who all have just one message to present to everyone. (Matt 24:14)
So what is the “good news of the Kingdom” to you Johann...? What is it that you are supposed to tell people who ask what it is, and what it will accomplish? Can you tell me?
I have already answered this-and familiar with-"answering a question WITH a question" @Aunty Jane
Hence, Jesus is either the true God or he is a false god. But since the NT emphatically denies that the Lord Jesus is a false god, the only option left is that he is the true God. To help clarify the implication that passages such as Deut. 32:39 have on our exegesis and understanding of John 1:1, as well in respect to the person of Christ, we present the following syllogism:
A. There are no other Gods besides Yahweh.
B. Jesus is God.
C. Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh God.
John’s prologue doesn’t stop there but goes on to distinguish the Lord Jesus from another who is called God. Again:
A. The Person with Jesus is identified as God.
B. There is only one God.
C. God must subsist in at least 2 Persons.
How does the Watchtower respond to this? In the Watchtower, 1975, p. 63, this is what they write:
"Viewed in their proper setting, these texts in no way contradict each other. They are discussing entirely different matters. At Deuteronomy 32:39, the point being made is that the false gods of the nations have no share with Jehovah in his saving acts. They are unable to deliver their worshipers from disaster. This is evident from the preceding two verses 37, 38,which read: "Where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge, who used to eat the fat of their sacrifices, to drink the wine of their drink offerings?
Let them get up and help you. Let them become a concealment place for you." Other parts of this song likewise indicate that these false gods had no share in the expressing of Jehovah's saving power. With reference to the nation of Israel as represented in its forefather Jacob, De 32 verse 12 says: "Jehovah alone kept leading him, and there was no foreign god along with him." Apostasy, however, set in among the Israelites, as De 32 verses 16, 17 and 21 tell us: "They began inciting him to jealousy with strange gods; with detestable things they kept offending him. They went sacrificing to demons, not to God, gods whom they had not known, new ones who recently came in, with whom your forefathers were not acquainted. They, for their part, have incited me to jealousy with what is no god."
Against this background, we can appreciate that none of such false gods were 'together with Jehovah' in anything that he did. He alone is the true God, whereas the false gods are an unreality, nonexistent and powerless to help their worshipers in time of calamity. As for the reference to the Word's "being a god," it does not disagree with the statement at Deuteronomy 32:39. Why not? Because the Word does not stand in opposition to Jehovah nor is he a rival, as was the case with the false gods.
Then, too, in the phrase rendered "the Word was a god," the term "god" is a predicate noun that describes the Word. Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures: "It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." In view of the descriptive nature of the predicate noun for "god" in the original Greek, An American Translation renders John 1:1: "The Word was divine." The New World Translation, however, retains the predicate noun and indicates the significance of the omission of the definite article by using the indefinite article. Being God's firstborn Son, "the Word" could rightly be described as a "god" or powerful one, even as are God s other angelic sons at Psalm 8:5. (Compare Hebrews 2:6-8.) But neither the firstborn Son nor the other faithful angelic sons of God stand in opposition to their Creator, or try to equal him or substitute for him, as do false gods. They all recognize that worship is properly directed to Jehovah God alone.- Phil. 2:5, 6; Rev. 19:10." (*; bold emphasis ours)
Examining John 1:1 In Light of Jehovah Witness Doctrine
Problematic @Aunty Jane-not being facetious here.
Johann.
Colossians 1:15-17 (NKJV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
You just admitted that Jesus existed back in Genesis!
Amen!!! Isn't it wonderful how God brings out the truth!!!
Last edited:
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,203
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Good to see you posting the usual Johann. When do you think Stallone will come down?
Don't you worry-soon I will be banned for standing for truth-as it stands written.
Johann.
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,203
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
You my friend run with the mainstream rivers! It's those heading upstream who are often banned.
Very true-unfortunately there is a prohibition on speaking re the Deity of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.
Shalom my brother.
Johann.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
This “either/or” scenario is an old trick, but false because there is another explanation that is entirely ignored.
Please read John 10:31-36 in the Greek, rather than the English translation and you will see what is also demonstrated in John 1:1.
The term “theos” (god) in Greek does not mean what it has come to mean in English.....plus there is a serious omission in the English translation which in both instances becomes obvious when you look for the little word that is overlooked, but puts a whole other meaning on the word “theos”. Why is that little word “ho” missing from the English translations.....it’s called translation bias. The KJV is notorious for it.
I had to laugh when I saw this..... Is the person of God reduced to a false equation now?
A. Having in mind what a “god” (theos) means in Greek, there is one true God who is identified clearly in the Hebrew Scriptures by his unique name YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah).....I say unique because no other being has this name that was revealed to Moses in fuller meaning in Exodus 3:13-15. (read that in the Tanakh)
In the KJV, in the few instances where the divine name is actually translated into English without a substitution of the title “LORD”, Psalm 83:18 identifies “Jehovah” as “the Most High over all the earth”.
B. States a belief, not a scriptural fact.....there is not a single passage of scripture that identifies Jesus as Yahweh....unless you force it into the text by implication. Implication and suggestion is what “proves” evolution to the atheist. How many believe in evolution as opposed to creation?
Which makes C a false assumption.
Two is not three. We do not have a single verse where Jesus says that he is a deity who should be worshipped. He directed all worship to his God and Father. (Luke 4:5-8) And because the son is the “beginning of God’s creation” (Rev 3:14) he existed before everything else, as Col 1:15-17 states. The son is an “image” of his Father....he reflects his likeness in every way but he is a completely separate entity. He is a “god” according to what that means in Greek....”a divine mighty one”.
Who told you you're a Greek and Hebrew expert? Kingdom Hall maybe?
Cannot agree here.
Familiar with your Interlinear.
Laugh all you want @Aunty Jane-there's more to come.
Incorrect-and please capitalize Jesus as God-not "god" Jesus received worship-Ho Kurion mou kai ho Theos mou-many other examples I can give you.
Johann.
And Jesus NEVER refused worship! If He wasn't God He would have! Just as He would have SEVERELY REBUKED Thomas for calling Him "My God"!!! Jesus IS God of the Bible.
Col 1 By Jesus all things were created.
Last edited:
Joh 20:28 In reply, T'oma said to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, Adoni and Elohai! [TEHILLIM 35:23]
Joh 20:28 και απεκριθη ο θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
So why is it not addressed Johann....show us a refutation using the Interlinear.....please show where you believe I am not telling the truth.
Here is John 1:1 from the Mounce Interlinear....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."
This has gone unanswered from previous posts, but you can see the definite article used only once, which makes the second "theos" "a god" or divine personage. Being divine does not make him Yahweh.
In John 10:31-36 (also unaddressed) the Greek identifies "the God" (Yahweh) as opposed to the "gods" (theos) mentioned by Jehovah himself when referring to the judges in Israel who judged with his divine authority. This is an authority that must be 'given' because even Jesus was "given" such authority as he said in Matt 28:18. Jesus said he was the son of "ho theos", leaving no doubt as to whom he recognized as "the only true God". (John 17:3)
I don't have to tell you what the definite article before "theos" means, and yet in the English translation, it is completely ignored.....if that is not translation bias, I don't know what is....are you complicit in this?
Nothing I have not addressed many times before Johann...you are flogging the proverbial dead horse....its not going to jump to attention as if I have not examined all things for myself. No one tells me what to believe....my heart does, but it has to be convinced by much study. I have not wasted the last 50 years. You can throw whatever you like at JW's, its water off a duck's back because we know WHAT we believe and more importantly, WHY we believe it. Deep study is what we do.....our faith is not superficial nor is it without scriptural support.
This is your belief, not mine. I might remind you that the Greek had no upper or lower case.....so capitals could not be used to infer something that wasn't there in the original text. The words themselves had to say what they meant.
I have also addressed the word "proskyneō " and what it means.....it isn't only "worship", anymore than the title "Lord", means only Jehovah. "Obeisance" is what Jesus accepted, never worship as he said in Luke 4:8, quoting the Tanakh where the divine name appears. Like the Jews were commanded, we worship Jehovah alone. We honor his Christ as "the son of God" which is what he called himself.
Last edited:
Hi Johann, I'm not affiliated with the JW's and while I disagree with some of their doctrinal beliefs, we agree on John 1:1. Most translations render it
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Diaglott interlinear reads, “In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.” Nestle’s Greek interlinear translates the Greek differently, causing a problem (some exceptions are made but not with regard to this particular subject). No doubt with good intent on his part, Nestle’s rendition changes John 1:1, as well as other similar passages throughout the New Testament that deal with Deity, in the pursuit and support of Trinitarian doctrine.
The usual procedure with a proper name in the Greek is to insert the article ho (“the”) before it. For example, ho Theos means “the God.” Many Scriptures in the New Testament do use the title ho Theos, but in a number of other cases where there is no question as to the identity of Jehovah, the article ho is not used. In the latter cases, the context makes plain that the reference is to the Heavenly Father. Therefore, in John 1:1, where Theos and Logos are used together, the omission and the inclusion of the Greek article ho take on an important connotation, for the God is being compared or contrasted with a god.
“In the [a] beginning.” How could the Word be Jehovah God since the Word had a beginning? The Father never had a beginning—He is from everlasting to everlasting. Of the two, only the Logos had a beginning. One does not have to be a Greek scholar to analyze this text, for the inconsistency becomes apparent when other Scriptures are considered. Two examples follow. Jehovah is the “eternal God” (Deut. 33:27). “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting” (Psa. 41:13). Trinitarians quote Scriptures in the New Testament to justify a conclusion that is at variance with the proper thought; namely, “In a beginning was the Word.”
Why did the Apostle John write this way? He was drawing an analogy with Genesis 1:1. “In the [a] beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” In a beginning was the earth (Gen. 1:1). In a beginning was the Word (John 1:1). In neither case does the text say, “In a beginning was Jehovah.” In the Fourth Creative Day, or epoch, the light penetrated the veil of clouds so that the sun could be seen with reasonable clarity.
Since there are those who differ with orthodoxy and are not Greek scholars and have no college degrees in this subject, Trinitarians challenge their testimony and logic. However, the best Greek scholars can read the Bible and not understand it. Remember, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever attended any theological seminary. The Holy Spirit is the teacher, not institutions of higher learning.
Trinitarians who use John 1:1 to support their viewpoint can be asked, “If God is the Word, how could He have a beginning?” They cannot answer that question. It is difficult to argue in the Greek because many scholars follow Colwell’s Rule, and Bruce Metzger of Princeton University has written on the subject, but the above question cannot be answered satisfactorily. Thus the very beginning of the context of John 1:1 is an argument in itself—simplistic, to the point, and obvious to those who have similar familiarity with Scripture.
The Greek word theos, meaning “God” or “god” depending on context, is used in the following texts:
- 2 Cor. 4:4—”In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto 2 them.”
- Acts 7:43—“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your [false] god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.”
- Acts 12:22—“And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.”
- Acts 17:23—“For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.”
- Acts 28:6—“Howbeit they looked when he [Paul] should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.” The word “a” is understandably supplied, though it is not in the Greek.
- Phil. 3:19—“Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.” Here theos should be lowercase “god.”
Continued below
Continuing this conversation @Johann
An abundance of Scriptures disprove the Trinity, so one need not be a Greek scholar. In fact, going to a university and studying Greek does not give one Biblical understanding. Theological seminaries tend to brainwash their students on the subject of the Trinity. A humble fisherman, if Spirit-begotten, can set forth what the Bible really teaches. Some Scriptures that bear on the matter are listed below:
Nestle’s translation of John 1:1 contains a footnote that is based on a very weak argument concerning Colwell’s Rule. (Colwell himself has a modifying clause, admitting there can be an exception, but Trinitarians do not quote the clause.) The footnote is as follows: “And God was the Word [interlinear Greek].” Note that the subject has the article and the predicate has it not; hence translate “the Word was God.”
In other words, Trinitarians try to say that even though the Greek lacks the article, it cannot say “a god.” Then they try to discuss subject and predicate, but they contradict themselves right here in the Gospel of John. For instance, Nestle said that the subject has the article. He had “the Word” as the subject, but the Greek has, “And God was the Word”; that is, Nestle called “the Word,” which occurs after the verb, the subject. Greek scholars will concur because they are all blind on this topic.
Notice the previous clause, which is right in the same context: “And the Word was with the God.” This is the same type of sentence, but here both the subject and the predicate have the Greek article ho. “And the [ho] Word [Logos] was with the [ho] God [Theos].” The Greek article occurs before both nouns. In the clause “And the Word was God,” the subject contains the article ho but not the predicate. Therefore, the proper translation should be, “And the Word was a god.” The two clauses side by side thus contradict their very rule. It makes no difference how the sentence is switched around. In other words, it makes no difference which noun is subject and which noun is predicate. The first clause has two articles; the second clause, only one. If Trinitarian reasoning is correct, why wasn’t the extra article in the second clause?
The Bible interprets itself. Contextual evidence is the strongest kind of evidence and should be considered first. Then other, or supportive, evidence helps to back up or refute a conclusion. “In a beginning” is contextual evidence, for only God had no beginning. Hence “the Word” cannot refer to God, for the Logos had a beginning. And the grammatical argument also contradicts
An abundance of Scriptures disprove the Trinity, so one need not be a Greek scholar. In fact, going to a university and studying Greek does not give one Biblical understanding. Theological seminaries tend to brainwash their students on the subject of the Trinity. A humble fisherman, if Spirit-begotten, can set forth what the Bible really teaches. Some Scriptures that bear on the matter are listed below:
- Jesus is personified in Proverbs 8:22,23,30. “The LORD [Jehovah] possessed [created] me in the beginning of his way [work], before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting [years ago], from the beginning, or ever the earth was [formed].... Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him.” Jesus was brought up as a child by his Father’s side. Trinitarians say this passage is an allegory about wisdom, not about Jesus.
- New Testament Scriptures saying Jesus is the wisdom of God would answer the Proverbs 8 argument. “But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.... But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:24,30).
- The Apostle John began his first epistle with wording similar to the way he started his Gospel. “That [the Logos] which was from the [a] beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word [Logos] of life” (1 John 1:1). Trinitarians use this verse to show that Logos as wisdom had a beginning. However, it actually refers to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.
- Jesus is called “the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). In other words, Jesus was created by God; Jesus is NOT God.
- Jesus is “the [express] image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Col. 1:15).
- A contrast between God and Jesus is shown in the Book of Revelation, where God is described as “him which is, and which was, and which is to come” (Rev. 1:4). In other words, God had no beginning. He was (in the past), He is (in the present), and He will be (in the future). He is the unending One, from everlasting to everlasting. He has always existed and never had a beginning. 3
- In Revelation 1:18, Jesus said, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen.” When Jesus was dead, he was not; that is, he did not exist. Revelation 1:4 and 1:18 cannot both refer to Jehovah. Only God is the ever-living One. Jesus is a great one, a mighty God, but not the Almighty God.
- “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Jesus is between God and men, and hence cannot be the same as God.
- “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). The comparison is between man and woman. Man is the head of the woman, and these are two separate individuals. By extension, then, Paul was talking about four separate personalities: God, Christ, man, and woman. God is the head of Christ—that is, He is superior to Christ. Creeds could be used in the future to separate out those who deny the Trinity. To say that Jesus is coequal with God when God is the head of Christ is untenable. When Jesus died and was raised from death, it was God who highly exalted him—Jesus did not exalt himself. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9). “For he [Christ] must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). When this work is accomplished, Jesus will turn over the Kingdom to his Father. A premise is laid down in 1 Corinthians 15:27: “But when he [God] saith all things are put under him [Christ], it is manifest that he [the Father] is excepted.”
- John 14:28 reads, “My Father is greater than I.”
- In Matthew 19:17, Jesus replied, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”
- Jesus cried out on the Cross not to himself but to the Father: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Trinitarians also ignore the realization that the word “everlasting” in the Old Testament can mean “age-lasting” (Hebrew olam). When we say “everlasting,” we think of an eternity, of that which is unending, but the Scriptural thought can be “age-lasting,” that is, lasting for a period of time until the consummation of a purpose. The Hebrew has no word for “eternity,” so the thought is conveyed in other ways. For example, Jehovah is the great “I AM.” But even here they err. They take the New Testament text where Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am,” to try to prove that both “I AM’s” are God (John 8:58). However, Jesus was simply saying that he never had a cessation of life from the time of his creation through the time he uttered the statement. It is not worth trying to rebut the Greek scholars, for one would first have to get a degree to even approach them. They will not discuss with such as equals, yet throughout history, many who lacked degrees achieved great things and had remarkable capabilities. All things being equal, education is of value, but things are not always equal.
- In Isaiah 42:1, the word “servant” is used to describe Jesus. “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” If the Father and the Son were coequal, Jesus would not be called a “servant.”
Nestle’s translation of John 1:1 contains a footnote that is based on a very weak argument concerning Colwell’s Rule. (Colwell himself has a modifying clause, admitting there can be an exception, but Trinitarians do not quote the clause.) The footnote is as follows: “And God was the Word [interlinear Greek].” Note that the subject has the article and the predicate has it not; hence translate “the Word was God.”
In other words, Trinitarians try to say that even though the Greek lacks the article, it cannot say “a god.” Then they try to discuss subject and predicate, but they contradict themselves right here in the Gospel of John. For instance, Nestle said that the subject has the article. He had “the Word” as the subject, but the Greek has, “And God was the Word”; that is, Nestle called “the Word,” which occurs after the verb, the subject. Greek scholars will concur because they are all blind on this topic.
Notice the previous clause, which is right in the same context: “And the Word was with the God.” This is the same type of sentence, but here both the subject and the predicate have the Greek article ho. “And the [ho] Word [Logos] was with the [ho] God [Theos].” The Greek article occurs before both nouns. In the clause “And the Word was God,” the subject contains the article ho but not the predicate. Therefore, the proper translation should be, “And the Word was a god.” The two clauses side by side thus contradict their very rule. It makes no difference how the sentence is switched around. In other words, it makes no difference which noun is subject and which noun is predicate. The first clause has two articles; the second clause, only one. If Trinitarian reasoning is correct, why wasn’t the extra article in the second clause?
The Bible interprets itself. Contextual evidence is the strongest kind of evidence and should be considered first. Then other, or supportive, evidence helps to back up or refute a conclusion. “In a beginning” is contextual evidence, for only God had no beginning. Hence “the Word” cannot refer to God, for the Logos had a beginning. And the grammatical argument also contradicts
Similar threads
