Just who is Jesus

[Adventageous]

The God of Israel was “one”, not “three”. (Deut 6:4)

Standard misunderstanding of Deut. 6:4, and of the use of the word "one" there, and a misunderstanding of the family name "JEHOVAH" (like as a 'last name' for a family, or family name) which is singular, and misunderstanding the plurality of Persons / Beings that are "Elohiym" within that singular united family, or sharing that singular family name.

Deu 6:4 KJB - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:​

Deu 6:4 KJB w/ Interliner notations - Hear (V‑Qal‑Imp‑ms) O Israel (N‑proper‑ms) The LORD (N‑proper‑ms) our God (N‑mpc | 1cp) is one (Number‑ms) LORD (N‑proper‑ms)​

Deu 6:4 HOT - שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃​

Deu 6:4 HOT Translit. - sh'ma yis'räël j'hväh élohëynû j'hväh echäd​

QUESTION 021: The scriptures clearly say “... The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deu. 6:4; Mar. 12:29 KJB), how then can there be “three” (1 Jhn. 5:7 KJB) Persons / Beings?

ANSWER 021: When most people read Deu. 6:4 KJB, or even Mar. 12:29 KJB, they do so out of context, and not in harmony with the original language they were written in:

Deuteronomy 6:4 KJB - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:​

​

Deuteronomy 6:4 HOT - שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃​

​

Deuteronomy 6:4 HOT Transliterated - sh'ma Is'räël J'HVäH élohëynû J'HVäH echäd​

Deu. 6:4, showing the singular (Name) and plurality (Persons / Beings) in it:

​

“Hear (listen), O Israel (the peoples), JEHOVAH (Singular - Family name stemming from the Father) Elohiym (“Gods”; Plurality - Three Persons / Beings; JEHOVAH Sr. – the Father; JEHOVAH Jr. – The Son; and the Holy Spirit of JEHOVAH; our God (N‑mpc | 1cp); Noun-masculine-plural construct | 1st person-common-plural) is / are a harmonious JEHOVAH (Singular - Family name)”. Thus the "God" of Deu. 6:4 are the 3 that are the "Elohiym" (mighties), or Godhead, or family JEHOVAH. Elohiym is a Hebrew true plurality, as demonstrated in this book - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

In other words, the Three Persons / Beings are a Trio, or united together not in Their Persons / Beings or even “essence” (as some persons use), but in Their Purpose (Jhn. 17:11,22 KJB; &c.; like as the Bible is many books, but a united whole message, or 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, but a harmonious Gospel) which are really sharing the same wonderful news of God’s promises in Christ Jesus. This Eternal Heavenly Trio are not like the pagan pantheon of triads, triquetra, triskelons, tritheism, who all fought & warred with each other, vying for supremacy. This Trio is love, the eternal Family JEHOVAH Whom have ever been self-sacrificing toward one another, considering each other.

Think like as a Family Company with a name: “JEHOVAH” Construction. They (Father, Son & Holy Ghost) are all each “Boss” (like “God”) over their employees.

In fact, the Father “JEHOVAH” Sr. can be “with” Son “JEHOVAH” Jr. (What does a person call a Son who carries the exact same name as their Father?) at a construction (Creation) site (like in Gen. 1:1 KJB), and an employee (like the angels, “morning stars”, “sons of God”; Job 38:7 KJB) come up to them two, and say “Boss”, and both would respond together, because “Boss” (Son) was “with” the “Boss” (Father) at that moment. This is exactly what is found written in Jhn. 1:1 wherein “God” (Person / Being of the Son) was “with” “the God” (Person / Being of the Father).

Even in ‘maths’ (mathematics) this works because of something called the theory of “set maths”.

​

Uncreated & Infinite Eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the {set Deity}​

​

Created & finite Angels, mankind & lesser creatures are the {set creation}​

{set Deity} is Head over {set creation}. Yet {set Deity} is not a single Person / Being, but a collective or united group that is Godhead, just as all individuals together which are creation is / are not a single person / being but a collective group under a single label (the created).

Yet, in {set Deity} as {set Head} are three Persons / Beings which individually or together {set} are “Head” over creation.

Yet in {set Deity} or Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there is also hierarchy (Gen. 41:40 KJB) and each their own {set}.

[0] {set Godhead or Elohiym (Gods / God), the Eternal Heavenly Trio}​

​

[1] {set Father; Head & God of the Son (1 Cor. 11:3; Jhn. 20:17 KJB)}​

​

[2] {set Son; the “hand” / “arm of the LORD (His Father)” (Isa. 53:1; Jhn. 12:38 KJB)}​

​

[3] {set Holy Spirit; “the finger of GOD” (Exo. 8:19, 31:18; Deu. 9:10; Luk. 11:20; Mat. 12:28 KJB)}.​

 

[Adventageous]

John 1:1 does not say in English what it says in Greek

Yes it does.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

Joh 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος​

Joh 1:1 ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM καιG2532 CONJ οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM​

In the beginning
εν αρχη
ενG1722 PREP αρχηG746 N-DSF
(see also Origen's Greek OT, Gen. 1:1, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ", which also does not have a definite article, and yet it is placed in translated English, because it is "DSF")

was the Word
ην ο λογος
ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM

and
και
καιG2532 CONJ

the Word
ο λογος
οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM

was with God
προς τον θεον
προςG4314 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM θεονG2316

and
και
καιG2532 CONJ

the Word was God
θεος ην ο λογος
θεοςG2316 N-NSM ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S οG3588 T-NSM λογοςG3056 N-NSM

The koine Greek word order is not so important as the koine Greek endings or word forms, which when translated into proper (and not confusing) English, reads exactly as John 1:1 KJB does. Even the definite article in koine Greek (since koine Greek doesn't really have an indefinite, beside leaving off / out the definite article) is not always able to be translated into proper English, since that is the way English works. Most people do not normally say "the John" ("ο ιωαννης", "τον ιωαννην", see Mat. 3:4,13, 14:4,10 GNT TR, &c.) unless trying to distinguish between one specific John and another named John, though in certain cases in scripture a definite article is in the koine Greek this way, but to translate it as such into English would be quite jarring to any English speaker / reader / linguist / translator. Sometimes in the koine Greek it is without the definite article, and when translating into English, a definite article (the) is sometimes needful.

John, in John 1:1, utilizes the definite article ("τον", "τονG3588 T-ASM") in the koine Greek when making a distinction between the Persons / Beings of "[the] God" the Father, and "God" the Word (Son). Daniel does something similarly in Dan. 7, when referring to the Person / Being of the Father, Daniel uses the phrase "the Ancient of Days" (Dan. 7:9,13,22 KJB) and is only ever used of the Father's Person / Being), but when speaking of the Son, he says, "the Son of Man" (Dan. 7:13 KJB).

This means that "the Word" ("ο λογος"), who is "God" (θεος) was not "[the] God" (τον θεον), since "[the] God] (τον θεον) was the Person / Being of the Father, and the other who was "the Word" ("ο λογος"), who is "God" (θεος), is the Person / Being of the Son (Jhn. 1:1-18, in context). It was "the Word" ("ο λογος"), who is "God" (θεος), who was "with" "[the] God" (τον θεον) "in the beginning" (εν αρχη). Thus "God" (Deity, Son's Person / Being) stood with "[the] God" (Deity, Father's Person / Being). This is not complicated. It is as if I have two "Bosses", and both are called "Boss", and the one who is "Boss" who is the son, is standing next to "[the] Boss" who is the father. Both are "Boss". Both are over their hired employees (creation) in authority. Among the Bosses, there is heirarchial order, and thus, the Father who is "[the] Boss" is also over the one who is "Boss" who is the Son. The son is not "Boss" of "[the] Boss", the father, but the father is "[the] Boss" who is over "boss", who is the son, and both are over all their employees as "Boss", either individually, or together in their Authorities.

Thus in John 1:1 "God" (Deity, the Word, the Son of the Father) was "with" "[the] God" (Deity, the Person / Being of the Father), The Son (Deity) was with the Father (Deity), "Boss" was with "[the] Boss") as witnessed by the other Boss (Holy Spirit), as Gen. 1; and Pro. 8 and elsewhere shows. Turn to Gen. 1, and we can see that "God said", whom is the Father's Person / Being speaking to the Son's Person / Being, which is the "God" who "made" according to the Father's will. There is also the "God saw" and the "Spirit" who is the eternal witness of the speech and actions of the Father and Son for us, that it may be inspired / recorded for posterity later. All three Persons / Beings are found in John 1:1, the first 2 being overt, and the 3rd being behind the scenes (as the eternal camera man / witness), inspiring the text itself to be recorded.

PS. It is also amazing to me the unbridled 'hubris' of a person to think that their insignificant scholarship is more superior than those King James translators in theirs. They were ones who wrote lexicons, and translated the so called ECF, and other things. They were spiritual giants among men in not only their scholarship, but their spirituality.

E. The second Oxford Company: The Gospels, Acts and Revelation

​

Thomas Ravis, 1560 - 1609; George Abbot, 1562 - 1633; Richard Eedes, 1555 - 1604; Giles Tomson, 1553 - 1612; Henry Saville, 1549 - 1622; John Perin (Perne), 15?? - 1615; Ralph Ravens, 15?? - 1615; John Harmar, 15?? - 1613; Leonard Hutten, 1557 - 1632; John Aglionby, 1566 - 1609; James Mountague (Montagu), 1568 - 1618; ​

​

It is simply amazing pride to think that one is wiser than this group together, and when all the other groups also went over the translation, with a final oversight on top of that, along with such texts being freely available to the churches / bishops at the time for consideration by the Translator's regulations.

 

[Aunty Jane]

This means that "the Word" ("ο λογος"), who is "God" (θεος) was not "[the] God" (τον θεον), since "[the] God] (τον θεον) was the Person / Being of the Father, and the other who was "the Word" ("ο λογος"), who is "God" (θεος), is the Person / Being of the Son (Jhn. 1:1-18, in context). It was "the Word" ("ο λογος"), who is "God" (θεος), who was "with" "[the] God" (τον θεον) "in the beginning" (εν αρχη). Thus "God" (Deity, Son's Person / Being) stood with "[the] God" (Deity, Father's Person / Being). This is not complicated. It is as if I have two "Bosses", and both are called "Boss", and the one who is "Boss" who is the son, is standing next to "[the] Boss" who is the father. Both are "Boss". Both are over their hired employees (creation) in authority. Among the Bosses, there is heirarchial order, and thus, the Father who is "[the] Boss" is also over the one who is "Boss" who is the Son. The son is not "Boss" of "[the] Boss", the father, but the father is "[the] Boss" who is over "boss", who is the son, and both are over all their employees as "Boss", either individually, or together in their Authorities.

That is an incredibly complicated way to explain something simple....

The translation of John 1:1 was no more complicated than understanding that “theos” has more than one meaning in Greek.....in English translations, it basically means only one Being who then gets complicated because some were want to make the Son and the Father into one “theos”, and then add another deity to the mix...which the Bible clearly shows that they are both “theos” as Strongs defines the primary definition as....

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”

It can also mean...

“refers to the things of God

1. his counsels, interests, things due to him
2. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      
      1. of magistrates and judges.”

So as we can see, “theos” does not just have one definition....

Correctly translated it should have read....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was divine”.

Both Father and Son fit the first definition, but both are not “deity”....both are described by that one word, which in Scripture is used to describe angels, the devil, and human judges in Israel. Getting a handle on that is the first priority because then it doesn’t have to be complicated.

It becomes even more complicated when one defines the Holy Spirit as a “Ghost”...there is no such word in Scripture and the Holy Spirit is never once called “God”. (theos) It is called “God’s spirit”, because it belongs to him, and goes out of him to empower others....even the Son at his baptism....who could only then perform miracles.

If human judges in Israel were called “theos” by Yahweh himself, then we should get our definitions straight. (John 10:31-36)

It is also amazing to me the unbridled 'hubris' of a person to think that their insignificant scholarship is more superior than those King James translators in theirs. They were ones who wrote lexicons, and translated the so called ECF, and other things. They were spiritual giants among men in not only their scholarship, but their spirituality.

Couldn’t be that the translators of the KJV were trinitarians by any chance?

The KJV in our modern era is an out-dated dinosaur. The whole reason for a translation in the first place is to convey what one language means in another. Unless that is done in a clear and concise manner, much can be lost...one should not have to read a dead language to understand Scripture....linguistics have vastly improved since the KJV was produced. It served a purpose back then when everyone spoke like that...but they don’t anymore. We need the Bible in our language...the language of today.
I would never recommend the KJV to any Bible student as there are much better scholarly works available to the readers of today.
The archaic language of a by-gone era is a hinderance to understanding Bible truth.

It is simply amazing pride to think that one is wiser than this group together, and when all the other groups also went over the translation, with a final oversight on top of that, along with such texts being freely available to the churches / bishops at the time for consideration by the Translator's regulations.

Are you forgetting that an apostasy was foretold by Jesus and the apostles, who said that it would turn Christianity into a false counterfeit by satan and his easily led minions? Remember the “wheat and the weeds”?
The apostles indicated that this defection was “already at work” towards the end of the first century and that the apostles themselves were restraining it, probably because John was yet to receive his Revelation.

Once all the apostles were gone, there was nothing restraining that apostasy...which we can now identify as the divided mess that is called, Christendom. The devil has had many centuries to entrench his false religious ideas in the world.

The apostles taught the truth, but those who came after them were easily led into apostasy as were the Jews before them. By the time of Christ’s arrival, they were hundreds of years into their apostasy, after many attempts by God to reform them....but once God had produced his Messiah, and they orchestrated his murder, he abandoned them......just as he will abandon Christendom for all her lies and disgusting behaviour in imitation of apostate Judaism. They have much blood on their hands. (Isa 1:15)

The history lesson is there for all to see, but the majority will refuse to see that history is repeating because the devil has no new tricks.....his deceptions have worked for him in every generation for all the same reasons. He has the ability to “blind the minds” of only “the unbelievers”.....(2 Cor 4:3-4)....true believers see right through him because they are not blinded to follow the crowd. They stand out as different and are hated because of it. (John 15:18-21)

What “pride” is demonstrated when those who mislead the majority, imitate the Pharisees....and refuse correction?

 

[Adventageous]

That is an incredibly complicated way to explain something simple....

Thank you for talking to me again. It is only required because of how WTS / JW, arians, unitarians, etc make a mess of Jhn. 1:1. It is simple. It is plain.

The Word (Son / Jesus) was God (Deity), and He was "in the beginning" "with" the God (Deity), or Person / Being of the Father. Nothing complicated about it.

John is referring to Gen. 1, in which "God said" is "the God" (Deity, the Father's Person / Being) which issued His will to the Son, the very "God" (Deity) which "made" all things according to the Father's will, and thus, "God" (Son) was "with" "the God" (Father) "in the beginning".

The koine Greek (G2316) "θεος", "theos" means "god" (period), and is essentially always translated as such in the NT (and even used as such in Origen's Greek hexapla). Now, what type of "god" depends on context. There is the "god" over all creation (Deity), there are false "gods" (devils, idols, fallen humanity, etc), and there are human "gods" (Adam / Eve, Moses, religious / judicial leadership among humanity). The word "god" is like the word "boss". It means ruler over, ruling authority.

 

[Adventageous]

So as we can see, “theos” does not just one definition....

No, it has one definition, with sub parts which are explained by contextual use.

 

[Adventageous]

Correctly translated it should have read....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was divine”.

"Correctly" according to whom? 'you'? some anonymous person/s? based on what?

No, the word "theos" (G2316) does not mean "divine" ("θειας", G2304, see 2 Pet. 13,:4 GNT TR / KJB), it means "god". While related, they are not the same thing. If John, by the Holy Ghost (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:21 KJB), had meant "divine" he would have used the proper koine Greek word for such. John, by that same Holy Ghost, did not, and used the proper koine Greek word for "god" (deity). No amount of "wrest[ing]" the scriptures (Psa. 56:5; 2 Pet. 3:16 KJB) can change it, since the words of God are eternally settled in Heaven and preserved by God.

 

[Adventageous]

Both Father and Son fit the first definition, but both are not “deity”....both are described by that one word, which in Scripture is used to describe angels, the devil, and human judges in Israel.

Yes, the word is used to describe various personages / beings (some Deity, and others not), and the context always determines the slight variances between them. However, in every case they are all "gods", or "bosses", ruling authorities, which is all that the word really means. Any additional attributes are given in the context to those beings, whether Deity or not. John, in John 1:1, is referring to Deities (God and the God), since there are no other mentions of any other beings "in the beginning" which created besides those Deities.

1. The Father, the God, God said ...​

2. The Son, God, and God made (according to what the God said to Him)​

3. The Holy Ghost / Spirit, and God saw (witnessed the actions of Father and Son, to be recorded in Gen. 1, Pro. 8, &c.), "Spirit".​

Nothing complicated about that. Those Three were there "in the beginning", as "Elohiym" (a true plural word), that share the (singular) name (JEHOVAH).

 

[Adventageous]

It becomes even more complicated when one defines the Holy Spirit as a “Ghost”...there is no such word in Scripture and the Holy Spirit is never once called “God”

Only an arian would make this "complicated".

The words "spirit / ghost" are the same thing, just stemming from differing etymologies, like "James" & "Jacob". This is pointed out in my book (Chapter 8, page 94~ Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ), which I see you have not read (and still recommend you to do).

Etymologically (in the study of word origins), the word “ghost” comes from Latin through Proto-West Germanic, and Saxon, into English:

“ghost (n.) Old English gast “breath ... from Proto-West Germanic *gaistaz (source also of Old Saxon gest, Old Frisian jest, Middle Dutch gheest, Dutch geest, German Geist “spirit, ghost”). ... In Christian writing in Old English it is used to render Latin spiritus (see spirit (n.)), a sense preserved in Holy Ghost. ... The gh- spelling ... is first recorded 1610s; sense of “one who secretly does work for another” is from 1884 [ie. a ‘Ghost writer’]. ...” - Search 'ghost' on etymonline​

Etymologically, the word “spirit” comes from Latin through Anglo-French into English:

“... spirit (n.) mid-13c., “life, the animating or vital principle in man and animals,” from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit “spirit, soul” (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus “a breathing (of respiration, also of the wind), breath;” also “breath of a god,” hence “inspiration; breath of life,” hence life itself.​

The Latin word also could mean “disposition, character; high spirit, vigor, courage; pride, arrogance.” It is a derivative of spirare “to breathe,” and formerly was said to be perhaps from a PIE *(s)peis- “to blow” (source also of Old Church Slavonic pisto “to play on the flute”). But de Vaan says the Latin verb is “Possibly an onomatopoeic formation imitating the sound of breathing. There are no direct cognates.” Compare conspire, expire, inspire.​

In English it is attested from late 14c. as “divine substance, divine mind, God;” also “Christ” or His divine nature; also “the Holy Ghost; divine power.” ...” - Search 'spirit' on etymonline​

Yes, there is such word as "ghost / spirit" in scripture. It is just two English words, that are synonyms, being used, as the Bible does all of the time, as for instance:

Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,​

Luk 4:1 ιησους δε πνευματος αγιου πληρης υπεστρεψεν απο του ιορδανου και ηγετο εν τω πνευματι εις την ερημον​

​

Are you suggesting that the English translations of the original languages cannot use synonyms when translating the same words, so that the reader is not tired by the the same words in a single sentence, or should rather not those translators be able to freely use equative words that mean the same thing, enriching the reading experience? For example:

​

For when I had jumped over the house the people were amazed, for in bounding beyond the domicile's rooftop, the leaping was such that it superceded the boundaries of the dwelling completely.​

The Bible, even in original lanuages does this, and not merely in translation:

Isa_43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.​

​

Mat_16:9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?​

Mat_16:10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?​

​

Joh 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.​

Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.​

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.​

Yes, the Holy Spirit / Ghost is indeed identified as "God" in scripture, even from Gen. 1, "Spirit", and "God saw", and again "God" in Acts 5:3,4,9 KJB. There are also several places in the NT, which cite the OT texts, in referring to the Holy Spirit in the NT, but are JEHOVAH in the OT. See for instance, Jhn. 14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7 which refers to the OT, "JEHOVAH" as the Comforter, Isa. 51:3, 66:13; Jer. 31:13, &c. See also Gen. 1:2, and Deu. 32:4-12 KJB, see 2 Sam. 23:2-3 KJB, see Act. 28:25-27 citing OT Isa. 6:8-10. See Heb. 10:15-17 citing OT, Jer. 31:31-34. See Heb. 3:7-11, citing OT Psa. 95:10-11, Deu. 1:34-35; Neh. 9:20; Eze. 20:5-6,15. Compare Isa. 63:11-14 to Num. 14:11; Deu. 32:12 KJB, see 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16 to Exo. 29:45-46; Eze. 43:7,9; Zec. 2:10-11, &c.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of the LORD", and "The LORD's Spirit", just as the Son is the "Son of the Father", and the "father's son", and even the unfallen created angelic hosts are "spirits of the LORD", and as the Father is "the Father of spirits", even of "mankind". The word "spirit" when in reference to unfallen created angelic beings or to fallen created angelic beings, or even to mankind itself, is always a living person / being. The same is true of the Holy Ghost / Spirit, who is also a living intelligence, but uncreated and eternal, who goes where the Father (and or the Son in harmony with the Father) sends Him.

 

[Adventageous]

If human judges in Israel were called “theos” by Yahweh himself, then we should get our definitions straight. (John 10:31-36)

Yes, the human religious leaders are called "אלהים" (elohiym; Psa. 82:1,6 or in Origen's Greek hexapla (Psa. 81:1,6), "θεῶν, θεοὺς", "theown, theous" (vs 1), "Θεοί", "theoi" (vs 6)), and "θεοι" ("gods"; Jhn. 10:34 KJB), which means "gods". It doesn't mean "divine", or even "judges". It means "gods" and is like the word "bosses", ruling authorities. The context of Psa. 82, referred to in John 10:34, demonstrates the more nuanced subdefinition, in that those men (mankind) are not eternal Deities, but are the created "children of the Most High" (vs 6) that were to rule as "princes" (H8269, "השׂרים", "haSäriym", the principalities, the rulers) or ruling stewards in God's character of love under God (Deity).

I also mention many other such places where mankind are called "gods" in scripture in my book, and I also give more detail about Psa. 82 and Jhn. 10:34 therein as well.

The definition (singular) is straight. You are attempting to make it complicated. The word "theos" means "god", like the word "boss". The problem is, you are taking the contextual words and placing them into the root word definition of "elohiym" or "theos" (&c.). Do not do that. The words mean what they mean in their definition, "god", and the context then goes on to describe those various "gods".

 

[Adventageous]

Couldn’t be that the translators of the KJV were trinitarians by any chance?

Even if they were, the Bible does not teach the common "trinitarian" definition therein. So it is a non-sequitur, & irrelevant even if the "if" is met in condition, since there is no evidence, that even if the "if" was met in condition, that they actually did so. I am not granting anything. If you are making such a claim, you will have to evidence it. You would first have to prove translational bias for any individual demonstrably with documented evidence, and then you would have to demonstrate how that translational bias (should it actually exist), got past all of the individual translators, and all of the bishops / churches that it went out to for consideration, and the final review.

"KJV" is also a misnomer. It is either the AV (Authorized Version; Ecc. 8:4 KJB), AV1611 or KJB (King James Bible). It is not a "version" of a Bible, it is the Bible translated into (England) English.

So, why do you assume translational bias when you have not evidenced the claim at all, but simply made an inquisitorial accusation of such? can I mirror that back and ask about the Silver Sword of WTS / JW, or the KIT of the same, or the older Green Hard bound volume (which I have on my shelf right here)?

I do not really adhere to "chance", since God promised in the word itself, that God would not only inspire the text of scripture, but also preserve it forever to each generation (Psa. 12:6-7, &c.)

 

[Adventageous]

The KJV in our modern era is an out-dated dinosaur.

No, it is not, and I can literally "prove" this by hundreds of cited, linked, documented, examples. In very brief, the KJB is up to date in the modern vernacular English that is spoken in most of the world (due to England having once been that kingdom / empire upon which the sun never sat, think Australia, Islands, India, Europe, America's, and even in deep China, Japan, etc). If you need specific examples, I can and will provide them.

Are there some 'archaic' words therein? Sure, but even those are still used in modern day language in the last 20 years in modern movies, music, anime, book, poetry, art, &c.

 

[Davy]

Let me just correct a few things here.....

How was God “with” his people all through Bible history? Wasn’t it through his human representatives?

The Catholic Church did not yet exist when Apostle Matthew said that Matthew 1:20-23 Scripture. So their's your first LIE having been exposed.

Do you understand why Yahweh had to appoint his Son as his mediator? (1 Tim 2:5-6) Do you know what the role of a mediator is?

You're trying to change the subject, your vain attempt to get off the subject of the Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:20-23 Scripture.

The rest of your post is just a repeat of Judaism's denial that God came in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Adventageous]

one should not have to read a dead language to understand Scripture

You mean like koine Greek? England English is not a dead language.

 

[JohnDB]

"Sigh"

Once upon a time....
Not all that long ago....

A person seeking baptism and church membership would need classes so that the membership was knowledgeable about the faith they held And wouldn't make blunders.

ONE of the 25 questions was this:

Name three scriptures each for how Jesus fulfilled the roles of Priest, Prophet, and King for a total of 9 different scriptures.

Not that complicated....not that difficult. Until today.

 

[Adventageous]

It served a purpose back then when everyone spoke like that...but they don’t anymore.

Give an example, so I may compare it to modern language. If you mean words like "thee, thou, thine, ye, you, yours", those are specific to the underlying tenses in either 1st, 2nd or 3rd person singular or plurals. They are necessary. They are not archaic, they are simply English in specificity.

As for instance, look at the three translations:

Joh 3:7 KJB - Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.​

Joh 3:7 GNT TR - μη θαυμασης οτι ειπον σοι δει υμας γεννηθηναι ανωθεν​

Joh 3:7 GNT TR with Strong's & Robinson's notations - μηG3361 PRT-N θαυμασηςG2296 V-AAS-2S οτιG3754 CONJ ειπονG3004 V-2AAI-1S σοιG4771 P-2DS δειG1163 V-PAI-3S υμαςG4771 P-2AP γεννηθηναιG1080 V-APN ανωθενG509 ADV​

​

Joh 3:7 Silver Sword (WTS / JW Online) - 7  Do not be amazed because I told you: You people must be born again.j - https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/3/​

​

Joh 3:7 NIV - You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[a] must be born again.’ - Bible Gateway passage: John 3:7 - New International Version​

The King James Bible is the only accurate and specific translation. It uses "thee" (G4671, "σοιG4771 P-2DS", "soi") when Jesus addressed Nicodeums personally (as P-2DS is Personal/Possessive Pronoun - Dative 2nd Person Singular), and it uses "Ye" (G4771, "υμαςG4771 P-2AP", "[h]umas") when Jesus was referring to all of the Pharisees, and nation of 'Israel' (as P-2Ap is Personal/Possessive Pronoun - Accusative 2nd Person Plural).

The Silver Sword (WTS / JW online) has to add the word "people" (as in "you people") which word (people) is not in koine Greek of Jhn. 3:7 at all.

The NIV is even worse in its possible confusion, since it simply uses "you" (x2), which could mean plural twice, singular twice, singular and plural once each, and vice versa.

Even King James did not speak in that manner, and you can read his own books he wrote to his son, like "Basilikon Doron" ( Basilikon dōron [romanized]; or, His majestys Instructions to his dearest sonne, Henry the Prince : James I, King of England, 1566-1625 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ), and "Counterblast to Tobacco" ( King James his counterblast to tobacco. 1672 : James I, King of England. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ) and others of his works / written materials. Or you can read the translators own speeches in the Preface to the AV1611 - 1611 The Authorized King James Bible : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive and they did not normally utilize those words either, but in translating they wanted to be as accurate as possible in literal translation, with some dynamic equivalence in the mix for the common reader.

 

[Adventageous]

Are you forgetting that an apostasy was foretold by Jesus and the apostles, who said that it would turn Christianity into a false counterfeit by satan and his easily led minions? Remember the “wheat and the weeds”?
The apostles indicated that this defection was “already at work” towards the end of the first century and that the apostles themselves were restraining it, probably because John was yet to receive his Revelation.

Once all the apostles were gone, there was nothing restraining that apostasy...which we can now identify as the divided mess that is called, Christendom. The devil has had many centuries to entrench his false religious ideas in the world.

No, I am not forgetting anything. I list those references in my books, such as Jhn. 6:66; Act. 20:28-30; 2 Thes. 2:2-4; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-9, 4:3-4,10; Heb. 6:4-8; 1 Jhn. 2:19; Jud. 1:6,13; 3 Jhn. 1:9-10; Rev. 2:20,20 KJB; &c.

Also, Jesus (or the Bible) never said that all of "Christianity" would become apostate. There have always been true believers, along with the false. While there is a counterfeit Christianity (Rev. 17), true Christianity (Rev. 12) has always been here on earth, at all times. Even you cited "wheat and the weeds" (sic), which means there are always two groups.

Yes, apostasy was already happening even in Jesus' own minsitry (Jhn. 6:66), even as apostasy has occured from the fall of Lucifer (Heylel) and history simply repeats (Ecc. 1:9, 3:15 KJB).

It was not the apostles that were restraining the "falling away" ("αποστασια", "apostasia"; 2 Thes. 2:3 citing from Dan. 11), but the context of 2 Thes. 2 is that Pagan Rome (by persecution) was restraining (keeping at bay) the arise of "the man of sin" that "son of perdition", because by persecution by the Pagan Roman empire, it was much more difficult to have such falsehood arise, since it too would be persecuted then along with the truth. I can cite the context, as well as the historical continuity of whom the restraining authority was. Pagan Rome.

No, once Pagan Rome let up in its persecutions, epsecially in the days of Constantine and after, and its legalization, instead of it being "Religio Illicita" (forbidden religion), then the "man of sin" was able to more fully manifest over time, and allowed to grow and then begin persecution all over again (Rev. 12-13 KJB). Read - The Two Republics - SDA A T Jones The Two Republics : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Yes, there is great apostasy in the world, and foretold in Rev. 17, of the "mother" and her "harlots" daughters, but that does not ever completely wipe out true Christianity (Rev. 12), which existed then, even until now.

Yes, the devil has had 6000ish years so far to mess with God's words and peoples - Age Of The Earth : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive and yet in spite of all that, the pure word of God and his peoples have always existed, for God preserves both (Psa. 12:6-7 KJB), and what is in God's hands, the devil cannot forcibly remove, only entice (Jhn. 10:27-30 KJB).

 

[Adventageous]

The apostles taught the truth, but those who came after them were easily led into apostasy as were the Jews before them. By the time of Christ’s arrival, they were hundreds of years into their apostasy, after many attempts by God to reform them....but once God had produced his Messiah, and they orchestrated his murder, he abandoned them......just as he will abandon Christendom for all her lies and disgusting behaviour in imitation of apostate Judaism. They have much blood on their hands. (Isa 1:15)

God has never abandoned his people. Punish for apostasy, yes. Rebuke, yes. Send reproof by Prophets, etc, yes.

Isa 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.​

This refers to the nation in general, not every individual, since Isaiah, and later Jeremiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, Ezekiel, during that time were still faithful to God. God has always had a "remnant".

1Ki_19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.​

​

That you even think God has abandoned His people to start over is a gross error, that even the LDS follow (see 1 Nephi 13:4-6,20-42).

A person can even know who the last days "remnant" is:

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.​

It is not found among the WTS / JW since they refuse to keep God's commandments (Exo. 20:1-17 KJB) by their own statements.

 

[Adventageous]

What “pride” is demonstrated when those who mislead the majority, imitate the Pharisees....and refuse correction?

The "pride" comes from the devil, in which the Pharisees, like modern WTS/ JW, also refused the Deity of Jesus or to even acknowledge it. Jesus said to them:

Joh 8:24 KJB - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.​

Joh 8:24 GNT TR - ειπον ουν υμιν οτι αποθανεισθε εν ταις αμαρτιαις υμων εαν γαρ μη πιστευσητε οτι εγω ειμι αποθανεισθε εν ταις αμαρτιαις υμων​

It is because it requires eternal Deity to become a man and so become the propitiation for the sins of mankind. I have a whole section on this in the book - QUESTION 043: Can a creature (even a highly exalted one) have died for the sin of Adam, & of the whole world? (pages 523-532) - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Catholic Church did not yet exist when Apostle Matthew said that Matthew 1:20-23 Scripture. So their's your first LIE having been exposed.

Sorry...what on earth has the Catholic church got to do with what I said?
What lie have you exposed...? What was I referring to when I mentioned Bible history? I was speaking about the whole Bible not just the NT.....I hope you are not inferring that the RCC was in any way representing the one true God of the Bible?

What religious system was Jesus born into? How was the Jewish religious system organised for worship?
Who led them and who supported the High Priest? Who told them how to worship?

I was referring to the human representatives...those appointed to lead God’s people in worship in Bible times.
I was referring to the prophets who spoke God’s words to his people...that is how God was “with” Israel.

Another prophet was to come (Deut 18:18)...”a prophet like Moses” was to represent the true God in the last days of the Jewish system, before God allowed the gentile powers to crush them, to destroy their city with its Temple, and take over their land.
That prophet was Jesus Christ. (Acts 3:22-26; Acts7:37-38)

You're trying to change the subject, your vain attempt to get off the subject of the Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:20-23 Scripture.

The rest of your post is just a repeat of Judaism's denial that God came in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth.

Not a Bible student are you?
I am trying to explain Scripture to an infant who has not yet tasted solid food.
Once you are out of your depth, you flounder....that is sad to me because you might know a bit of indoctrinated church theology, but you clearly do not know your Bible.

Was the infant born to Mary called Immanuel?
Why was he called Jesus? (Yeshua)

I think you need to understand why the Jews would never have accepted God in the flesh.....
For Jews, it was a breach of the first Commandment to accept any other God than Yahweh.
Jesus never once said he was God....he only ever called himself “the Son of God”. (John 10:31-36)

Sin is a barrier between fallen humanity and their Creator, so he appointed a “mediator between God and men” who is identified as Jesus Christ. A mediator is a facilitator of communication between two estranged parties.....he cannot be one of the parties....you see, if Jesus was God, we would need a mediator between us and him as well.

John 1:18 clearly states that “no man has ever seen God”....but how many people saw Jesus....the trinity creates so many contradictions in Scripture, which is why it cannot be true.

Jesus is called God’s “High Priest”.....can God be his own High Priest? (Heb 3:1)
Jesus is called “God’s holy servant”....can God be his own servant? (Acts 4:27)
Jesus prayed to his God who is in heaven, whilst he was on the earth....
Can one God be in different places at the same time?
Does God pray to himself?
Can he have a different will to himself? (John 5:30)
Can one part of God know things that his other self doesn’t know? (Matt 24:36)

These questions have no answer if Jesus is not a completely separate entity to his God and Father?
Even after his return to heaven, Jesus still calls his Father “my God”. (Rev 3:12)
Does God have a God even in heaven? Does he worship himself?

Only the trinity makes these questions impossible to answer.....it becomes ridiculous!

 

[Adventageous]

Does God have a God even in heaven?

Yes. Jesus (the Son) as "God" (or Boss, over creation) has (and always has had even in eternity past) a "God" (or Boss), being His Father. There is heirarchy among the Persons / Beings of the Godhead, or Eternal Heavenly Trio. I did explain this already - Just who is Jesus The Father is always the Father of the Son, and the Son is always the Son of the Father. That the Son has His God (or Father) over Him, does not make Jesus any less Deity in His original nature, just as me (myself), being a son of my earthly father, makes me any less human (or of mankind) in nature than my earthly father.

In typology it goes like this:

​

Gen_41:40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.​