When one is following a Jesus who is less than fully man and fully God, they are still in their sins.
So, it would be God who is sending to Hell.
Has Kingdom Hall / WatchTower Ever Been Wrong?
- Thread starter Jack
- 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!
So, it would be God who is sending to Hell.
If you see the three dots for skipping text in a quote by the Watchtower it is often a quote out of context. Also, they published a perverted Bible. Their so-called translators were taken to Court by or in Scotland Yard and it was reviewed that thier head translator could not even read Elementary Hebrew that a First Grader would be able to Translate in Hebrew School.
Also, they have misquoted Greek Scholars to support their perversion. Those Translators wrote about being misquoted.
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
Google Bruce Metzer, Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, Elaine Pagels, Dominic Crossan-they all believe the NWT is a travesty. It is very bad. These people studied Koine Greek and the social/political world for decades.
What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:
Terrible translation. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament ...
www.theworldnewsmedia.org
Here is the letter written by Julius R. Mantey, whose Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament has been quoted by various Watchtower publications in their discussions of John 1:1-2:
"I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from The Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. Your quotation from P. 148(3) was in a paragraph under the heading: "With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence...theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris.
Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.
Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."
Prof. Harner, Vol. 92:1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god". Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58. The addition of "for all time" in Hebrews 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it.
The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes ktiseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as "the creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humble himself and lived in a human body here on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am" (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil. 2:6-8. When Jesus said that, he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) -- "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor. 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord." These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. Cf. Ps. 23:6 and Heb. 1:10.
The aforementioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote from the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance in the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule". On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved -- no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.
If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.
Respectfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey
"I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from The Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. Your quotation from P. 148(3) was in a paragraph under the heading: "With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence...theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in your letter to Caris.
Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.
Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."
Prof. Harner, Vol. 92:1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god". Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58. The addition of "for all time" in Hebrews 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it.
The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes ktiseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as "the creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humble himself and lived in a human body here on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am" (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil. 2:6-8. When Jesus said that, he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) -- "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor. 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord." These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. Cf. Ps. 23:6 and Heb. 1:10.
The aforementioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote from the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance in the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule". On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved -- no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.
If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.
Respectfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey
Christian Research Institute founder, Dr. Martin. begins by saying:
DR. MARTIN: In John 1:1, the New World Translation (NWT) says that "the Word was a God," referring to Jesus Christ. How would you respond to that?
DR. MANTEY: The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) have forgotten entirely what the order of the sentence indicates - that the "Logos" has the same substance, nature, or essence as the Father. To indicate that Jesus was just "a god," the JWs would have to use a completely different construction in the Greek.
DR. MARTIN: You once had a little difference of opinion with the Watchtower about this and wrote them a letter. What was their response to your letter?
DR. MANTEY: Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified - yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of a pagan concept.
DR. MARTIN: What was their response to what you said?
DR. MANTEY: They said I could have my opinion and they would retain theirs. What I wrote didn't phase them a bit.
DR. MARTIN: I don't know whether you're aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn't tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology - except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there.
DR. MANTEY: He was born in Greece, wasn't he?
DR. MARTIN: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, "How would you translate it?" He said: "Well, 'the word was a god."' I said: "What is the subject of the sentence?" He just looked at me. So I repeated, "What is the subject of the sentence?" He didn't know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn't know, the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours.
DR. MANTEY: That's right.
DR. MARTIN: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context?
DR. MANTEY: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that "the word was a god."
DR. MARTIN: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers."
DR. MANTEY: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!
DR. MARTIN: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth?
DR. MANTEY: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell.
Christian Research Institute
DR. MARTIN: In John 1:1, the New World Translation (NWT) says that "the Word was a God," referring to Jesus Christ. How would you respond to that?
DR. MANTEY: The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) have forgotten entirely what the order of the sentence indicates - that the "Logos" has the same substance, nature, or essence as the Father. To indicate that Jesus was just "a god," the JWs would have to use a completely different construction in the Greek.
DR. MARTIN: You once had a little difference of opinion with the Watchtower about this and wrote them a letter. What was their response to your letter?
DR. MANTEY: Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified - yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of a pagan concept.
DR. MARTIN: What was their response to what you said?
DR. MANTEY: They said I could have my opinion and they would retain theirs. What I wrote didn't phase them a bit.
DR. MARTIN: I don't know whether you're aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn't tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology - except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there.
DR. MANTEY: He was born in Greece, wasn't he?
DR. MARTIN: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, "How would you translate it?" He said: "Well, 'the word was a god."' I said: "What is the subject of the sentence?" He just looked at me. So I repeated, "What is the subject of the sentence?" He didn't know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn't know, the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours.
DR. MANTEY: That's right.
DR. MARTIN: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context?
DR. MANTEY: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that "the word was a god."
DR. MARTIN: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers."
DR. MANTEY: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!
DR. MARTIN: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth?
DR. MANTEY: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell.
Christian Research Institute
Master Index of Quotes of Quotes used to trash the Trinity in the Watchtower's, "Should you believe the Trinity?" and other anti-Trinitarian books.
Click to ViewSort by "Author"
Click to ViewSort by "Book Title"
Sorted Alphabetically by Author
Use "Control + F" on your keyboard to search
Sorted by Author
(Title)
Abbott, Lyman
Dictionary of Religious Knowledge
Alpha Encyclopedia, French
Alpha Encyclopedia, French
Barclay, William
Many Witnesses, One Lord
Bettenson, Henry
Documents of the Christian Church
Boer, Harry R.
A Short History of the Early Church
Bowman, Robert M.
Why You Should Believe In The Trinity
Brown, Colin
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
Buzzard, Anthony
Who is Jesus?
Calvin, John
Commentary on John
Carpenter, Edward
The Origins of Pagan and Christian Beliefs
Catholic Encyclopedias and Dictionaries
Catholic Encyclopedias and Dictionaries
Catholic Trinitas
Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity
Chadwick, Henry
The Early Church
Dodd, C.H.
The Bible Translator, Jan 1977
Douglas, J. D. & Bruce F. F.
New Bible Dictionary
Dunn, James D. G.
Christology in the Making
Durant, Will
Story of Civilization
Eliade, Mircea
The Encyclopedia of Religion
Encyclopædia Britannica
Encyclopædia Britannica
Encyclopedia Americana
Encyclopedia Americana
Enslin, Morton Scott
Christian Beginnings
Fortman, Edmund
The Triune God
Frend, W.H.C.
The Rise of Christianity
Funk, Robert W.
English translation of Earnest Haenchen's commentary on John
Gibbon, Edward
History of Christianity
Girdlestone, R. B.
Synonyms of the Old Testament
Grant, Robert M.
Gods and the One God
Greber, Johannes
New Testament
Haenchen, Earnest
Commentary on John
Hanson, R. P. C.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
Harnack, Adolf
Outlines of the History of Dogma
Harris, R. Laird
Theological Workbook of the Old Testament
Harner, Philip B.
Journal of Biblical Literature
Hase, Charles
A History of the Christian Church
Hastings, James
Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics
Henderson and Buck
Theological Dictionary
Henderson, Ian
Encyclopedia International
Hertz, J. H.
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs
Hick, John
The Myth of God Incarnate
Hislop, Alexander
The Two Babylons
Hodder and Stoughton
Illustrated Bible Dictionary
Hopkins, E. Washburn
Origin and Evolution of Religion
History of Religions
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Jocz, Jacob
The Jewish People and Jesus Christ
Kelly, J.N.D.
Early Christian Doctrines
Kennedy, H.A.A.
Expositor's Greek Testament, Philippians
Kittel, Gerhard
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Koran, Islamic, Muslims
Koran (Islamic)
Kung, Hans
Christianity and the World Religions
Lachatre, Maurice
1. Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary). 2. Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique
Lamson, Alvan
The Church of the First Three Centuries
Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology
Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology
Lohse, Bernard
A Short History of Christian Doctrine
Mantey, Julius R.
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
Martin, Ralph P.
Epistle Of Paul To The Philippians
McClintock and Strong
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature
McKenzie, John L.
Dictionary of the Bible
Metzger and Coogan
Oxford Companion to the Bible
Morenz, Siegfried
Egyptian Religion
Muller, James Arthur
Creeds and Loyalty
Newman, John Henry
Development of Christian Doctrine
Norton, Andrews
A Statement of Reasons for not believing the doctrines of Trinitarians
Noss, John B.
Man's Religions
Paine, L. L.
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism
Parthasarathy, A.
The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals
Reade, Winwood
The Martyrdom of Man
Reglan, Lord
The Hero
Rylands, John
Bulletin of The John Rylands Library
Schaff, Philip
History of the Christian Church and New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
Schneider, J.
Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament
Smith, William
A Dictionary Of The Bible
Storr, G. C. & Flatt
Biblical Theology
Taylor, Vincent
1. The person of Christ in NT teaching
2. The Expository Times, magazine
Thayer, Joseph H.
Greek-English Lexicon
Weigall, Arthur
The Paganism in Our Christianity
Wells, H.G.
1. Short History of the World. 2. The Outline Of History, Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind. 3. God the Invisible King
Werner, Martin
The Formation of Christian Dogma
Wierwille, Victor Paul (founder of The Way International an Arian Cult)
Jesus Christ is Not God
Woodrow, Ralph
Babylon Mystery Religion
Click to ViewSort by "Author"
Click to ViewSort by "Book Title"
Sorted Alphabetically by Author
Use "Control + F" on your keyboard to search
Sorted by Author
(Title)
Abbott, Lyman
Dictionary of Religious Knowledge
Alpha Encyclopedia, French
Alpha Encyclopedia, French
Barclay, William
Many Witnesses, One Lord
Bettenson, Henry
Documents of the Christian Church
Boer, Harry R.
A Short History of the Early Church
Bowman, Robert M.
Why You Should Believe In The Trinity
Brown, Colin
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
Buzzard, Anthony
Who is Jesus?
Calvin, John
Commentary on John
Carpenter, Edward
The Origins of Pagan and Christian Beliefs
Catholic Encyclopedias and Dictionaries
Catholic Encyclopedias and Dictionaries
Catholic Trinitas
Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity
Chadwick, Henry
The Early Church
Dodd, C.H.
The Bible Translator, Jan 1977
Douglas, J. D. & Bruce F. F.
New Bible Dictionary
Dunn, James D. G.
Christology in the Making
Durant, Will
Story of Civilization
Eliade, Mircea
The Encyclopedia of Religion
Encyclopædia Britannica
Encyclopædia Britannica
Encyclopedia Americana
Encyclopedia Americana
Enslin, Morton Scott
Christian Beginnings
Fortman, Edmund
The Triune God
Frend, W.H.C.
The Rise of Christianity
Funk, Robert W.
English translation of Earnest Haenchen's commentary on John
Gibbon, Edward
History of Christianity
Girdlestone, R. B.
Synonyms of the Old Testament
Grant, Robert M.
Gods and the One God
Greber, Johannes
New Testament
Haenchen, Earnest
Commentary on John
Hanson, R. P. C.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
Harnack, Adolf
Outlines of the History of Dogma
Harris, R. Laird
Theological Workbook of the Old Testament
Harner, Philip B.
Journal of Biblical Literature
Hase, Charles
A History of the Christian Church
Hastings, James
Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics
Henderson and Buck
Theological Dictionary
Henderson, Ian
Encyclopedia International
Hertz, J. H.
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs
Hick, John
The Myth of God Incarnate
Hislop, Alexander
The Two Babylons
Hodder and Stoughton
Illustrated Bible Dictionary
Hopkins, E. Washburn
Origin and Evolution of Religion
History of Religions
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Jocz, Jacob
The Jewish People and Jesus Christ
Kelly, J.N.D.
Early Christian Doctrines
Kennedy, H.A.A.
Expositor's Greek Testament, Philippians
Kittel, Gerhard
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Koran, Islamic, Muslims
Koran (Islamic)
Kung, Hans
Christianity and the World Religions
Lachatre, Maurice
1. Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary). 2. Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique
Lamson, Alvan
The Church of the First Three Centuries
Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology
Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology
Lohse, Bernard
A Short History of Christian Doctrine
Mantey, Julius R.
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
Martin, Ralph P.
Epistle Of Paul To The Philippians
McClintock and Strong
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature
McKenzie, John L.
Dictionary of the Bible
Metzger and Coogan
Oxford Companion to the Bible
Morenz, Siegfried
Egyptian Religion
Muller, James Arthur
Creeds and Loyalty
Newman, John Henry
Development of Christian Doctrine
Norton, Andrews
A Statement of Reasons for not believing the doctrines of Trinitarians
Noss, John B.
Man's Religions
Paine, L. L.
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism
Parthasarathy, A.
The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals
Reade, Winwood
The Martyrdom of Man
Reglan, Lord
The Hero
Rylands, John
Bulletin of The John Rylands Library
Schaff, Philip
History of the Christian Church and New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
Schneider, J.
Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament
Smith, William
A Dictionary Of The Bible
Storr, G. C. & Flatt
Biblical Theology
Taylor, Vincent
1. The person of Christ in NT teaching
2. The Expository Times, magazine
Thayer, Joseph H.
Greek-English Lexicon
Weigall, Arthur
The Paganism in Our Christianity
Wells, H.G.
1. Short History of the World. 2. The Outline Of History, Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind. 3. God the Invisible King
Werner, Martin
The Formation of Christian Dogma
Wierwille, Victor Paul (founder of The Way International an Arian Cult)
Jesus Christ is Not God
Woodrow, Ralph
Babylon Mystery Religion
Two common Watchtower practices are to use ellipses (…) to change the meaning of a sentence, or to quote a sentence accurately, but without indicating that the sentence does not represent the view of the author in the context of the entire paragraph. Following are a range of examples covering numerous topics. Some are one-off in a article, whilst on detailed topics such as evolution or the Trinity, a single Watchtower article will contain numerous misquotes.
Table of Contents
Critical Thinking
Last Days
Blood Transfusions
607 B.C.E.
Education
Cross
Trinity Brochure
Creation Book
Misquoted Scriptures
The Wedding Ring
Critical Thinking
In the article "Winning the Battle for Your Mind," Watchtower 2017 July page 28 includes a quote regarding propaganda:
"Therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people ... are discouraged from thinking critically."
What has been cut out and replaced by ellipses (...)?
"Therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people do not have access to multiple sources of information and if they are discouraged from thinking critically. Michael Balfour has suggested that the "best touchstone for distinguishing propaganda from science is whether a plurality of sources of information and of interpretations is being discouraged or fostered." Media and Society In the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction p.78 or Media and Society In the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction 2009 p.83 depending on edition, Lyn Gorman, David McLean
Watchtower's misuse of ellipses is very important when considered in light of the Watchtower article, which says to trust a single source of information, follow the organisation regardless of how imperfect and dismiss alternative information regardless of how plausible.
"... you—like any other soldier in the heat of battle—need a source of trustworthy, reliable information to prevent the enemy from playing tricks with your mind. Jehovah has provided this. In the pages of the Bible, you can find all you need to combat Satan’s propaganda." Watchtower 2017 Jul p.28
"Be determined to stick to Jehovah’s organization and loyally support the leadership he provides—no matter what imperfections may surface. (1 Thess. 5:12, 13) Do not be “quickly shaken from your reason” when faced with what appear to be damaging attacks by apostates or other such deceivers of the mind—however plausible their charges may seem." Watchtower 2017 Jul p.30
Table of Contents
Critical Thinking
Last Days
Blood Transfusions
607 B.C.E.
Education
Cross
Trinity Brochure
Creation Book
Misquoted Scriptures
The Wedding Ring
Critical Thinking
In the article "Winning the Battle for Your Mind," Watchtower 2017 July page 28 includes a quote regarding propaganda:
"Therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people ... are discouraged from thinking critically."
What has been cut out and replaced by ellipses (...)?
"Therefore, it is likely to be most effective if people do not have access to multiple sources of information and if they are discouraged from thinking critically. Michael Balfour has suggested that the "best touchstone for distinguishing propaganda from science is whether a plurality of sources of information and of interpretations is being discouraged or fostered." Media and Society In the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction p.78 or Media and Society In the 21st Century: A Historical Introduction 2009 p.83 depending on edition, Lyn Gorman, David McLean
Watchtower's misuse of ellipses is very important when considered in light of the Watchtower article, which says to trust a single source of information, follow the organisation regardless of how imperfect and dismiss alternative information regardless of how plausible.
"... you—like any other soldier in the heat of battle—need a source of trustworthy, reliable information to prevent the enemy from playing tricks with your mind. Jehovah has provided this. In the pages of the Bible, you can find all you need to combat Satan’s propaganda." Watchtower 2017 Jul p.28
"Be determined to stick to Jehovah’s organization and loyally support the leadership he provides—no matter what imperfections may surface. (1 Thess. 5:12, 13) Do not be “quickly shaken from your reason” when faced with what appear to be damaging attacks by apostates or other such deceivers of the mind—however plausible their charges may seem." Watchtower 2017 Jul p.30
Examples of misquotes, lies and deception in Watchtower publications
Examples of various techniques to mislead, such as misquotes, lies and deception in Watchtower publications
jwfacts.com
One outstanding misquote regards the risk of refusing a transfusion for renal transplantation. Not only is a full stop added, but the quote hides the context that shows a significant increase in death rate for Jehovah's Witness renal transplant patients with anaemia.
The full quote is:
Misleading comments are made such as that erythropoietin (EPO) can help a patient "form replacement red cells very quickly”, “three to four times faster than normal.” (How Can Blood Save Your Life? p.15)
Education
The Watchtower discourages advanced education. The following quote contains a number of flaws in how information should be presented.This quote encapsulates the misleading way the Watchtower commonly includes quotes.
First, no source for the quote is provided, so it is difficult and time consuming to verify. It turns out to be from the Encyclopedia of Sermons and that Phelps was a nineteenth century preacher. Such information is important in understanding the purpose and bias of such a comment. More importantly, the quote misrepresents the intention of Phelps' sentence, by the use of "…" to hide the first part of the quote;
In context we have a preacher recommending university, yet the Watchtower presents the quote in such manner to make it appear Phelps is downplaying the value of advanced education.
See The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers by Michael J. Partyka for an in-depth article with full source quotes of the partial quotes used in the Watchtower brochure Should you Believe the Trinity. In each case it is readily apparent that the Watchtower Society has distorted what the early Church Fathers were attempting to say.
Should You Believe in the Trinity? also makes classic use of ellipses to hide words like "but", "however" and "therefore" in order to twist the point being made by the source. Quotations are only partially referenced, making it difficult and time consuming to locate the original quote for verification purposes. The following partial Watchtower quotes are compared with the original quote to highlight how significantly the Watchtower is prepared to misrepresent sources to convince followers of their viewpoint.
There is many examples of misquotes by the watchtower.
Should You Believe in the Trinity? also makes classic use of ellipses to hide words like "but", "however" and "therefore" in order to twist the point being made by the source. Quotations are only partially referenced, making it difficult and time consuming to locate the original quote for verification purposes. The following partial Watchtower quotes are compared with the original quote to highlight how significantly the Watchtower is prepared to misrepresent sources to convince followers of their viewpoint.
| Source | Trinity Brochure | Full Quote |
| Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethic, James Hastings, Trinity, p.461 | "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. (ti pp. 6-7) | "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference." |
| The Triune God, Edward Fortman | "Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."" (ti p.6) | "They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. " |
Table of Contents
Lying
- Jehovah in the New Testament
- 1914 Quotes
- 1925 - Millions Now Living Will Never Die
- Naos
- Worship Jesus
- Russell's Biography
- 20th Century
- Death refusing Blood Transfusions
- Plagiarism
- Baptism
- Blame Members
- Downplay Defection
- African Watchtower Story
- War
- Splinter Groups
- Light Gets Brighter
- Vaccinations
Mis-quoting Sources
- Critical Thinking
- Last Days
- Blood Transfusions
- 607 B.C.E.
- Education
- Cross
- Trinity Brochure
- Creation Book
- Misquoted Scriptures
- The Wedding Ring
Rhetorical Fallacies
Has the Watchtower Ever Lied, Covered Up, or Changed Important Doctrines, Dates, and Biblical Interpretations?/Program 4 - JA Show Articles
Ankerberg: Welcome! During this program we’re going to be examining a new documentary film that has just come out entitled Witnesses of Jehovah. And it’s
I'm tired of the org misquoting scholars to support there heretical NWT
day after day jws are constantly fighting with me over the internet that the nwt is the most accurate translation and then they prove it by quoting scholars from the watchtower magazines. they tell me i'm biased and there rendering of john 1:1 as "a god" is approved by scholars but i have...
William Barclay
BDAG
Hans-Jürgen Becker
Jason BeDuhn
Steven T. Byington
Vivian Capel
Lant Carpenter
William D. Chamberlain
E.C. Colwell
Frederick Danker
C.H. Dodd
MacLean Gilmour
Edgar J. Goodspeed
Johannes Greber
S.G. Green
Ernst Haenchen
Phillip B. Harner
Murray J. Harris
Robert Harvey (Strachen)
Herman Heinfetter
George Horner (Coptic New Testament)
C. Houtman
George Howard
A.N. Jannaris
Felix Just
Benjamin Kedar
Thomas O. Lambdin
William Loader
Jon Madsen
Julius R. Mantey
Eilat Mazar
Robert M. McCoy
John L. McKenzie
James Moffatt
C.F.D. Moule
Archbishop Newcome
Andrews Norton
AM Perry
JD Phillips
Charles Francis Potter
Joseph Priestley
A.T. Robertson
Johannes Schneider
Siegfried Schulz
William Carey Taylor
Vincent Taylor
Rijkel ten Kate
John Thompson
Alexander Thomson
C.C. Torrey
W.E. Vine
J. W. Wenham
Paul Wernle
B.F. Westcott
Allen Wikgren
Benjamin Wilson
Thomas Winter
Robert Young
Scholar Quotation Used in Support of NWT What the Scholar Really Said
William Barclay "theos [in John 1:1c] becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun...[John] does not say that Jesus was God" (Barclay, Many Witnesses, One Lord, p. 23 - 24).
- The Watchtower, May 15, 1977, p. 320
When Barclay says that John didn't write that "Jesus was God," he merely means that Jesus was not God the Father. That Barclay sees an ontological unity between ho theos and ho logos is apparent in the following passage omitted from the Watchtower article:
"The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence, essential deity.' But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was'" (Barclay, p. 23).
Barclay also makes his position clear in a response to the Watchtower's citation:
"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Shoemaker, 8/26/1977.)
ADDITIONAL NOTE: It has been brought to my attention that William Barclay "lied" when stating the following about Jn 1:1:
The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. Jn 1:1 is translated : ‘Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible. [Col 2:1-17 is translated : ‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him all other things were created... All other things have been created through him and for him. Also he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist.’ Four times the word other is introduced and every time without justification. Ph 2:6 becomes ‘Christ Jesus, who, although be was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.’] It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest (The Expositor, Oct 1953, Vol 65, bold and brackets added; brackets indicate ellipsis on all pro-NWT websites that I'm aware of using Google 8/14/12).
Barclay's admission of his "lie" supposedly came 21 years later in a letter to Mr. David Burnett dated May 2, 1974:
Dear Mr. Burnett,
Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 16th April. You have
four questions and they must be answered, I am afraid, briefly in
order to get on to one airmail and because I have a heavy
correspondence.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
Word was God." You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the
Word was a God"; but it seems obvious that this is so much against
the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. I am
quite sure myself that the following is the correct translation.
Even if the claim is true, and Barclay knowingly lied, it is logically fallacious to claim this fact exonerates the WT from twisting its quote from him. It is an obvious example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy.
But it is not clear that Barclay lied in the first place. Notice his "grammatically impossible" comment does not refer to Jn 1:1c, but the entire verse. This verse starts with the phrase "Originally the Word was" (reflecting the wording of the 1950 Edition, later revised to the more familiar "In the beginning"). This rendering obscures the parallel with Gen 1:1, which John was echoing. Notice that the original NWT translates the Greek as an adverb, not a noun. No Greek grammar or lexicon states it is permissible to translate a dative noun as an adverb. Also, the traditional rendering follows the Greek precisely. So, Barclay may have possibly been referring to the verse in its entirety, not merely the "a god" rendering.
Also, as you can see by the inclusion of Barclay's original comments (replaced with "..." on all JW websites I could find, which suggests a common source), the phrase "It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest" actually referred to more than just Jn 1:1.
Or, more likely, he did not remember what he had said about the NWT some 20-odd years before. It was, after all, a brief article written just 3 years after the release of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures. At the time, he may well have been convinced by the so-called Colwell's Rule (see here for more details) and thought it was grammatically impossible, but over the intervening years, revised his opinion.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the WT is guilty of "judiciously cutting" Barclay's remarks so as confuse its readers, if not openly deceive them.
Here are the quotes from the authors of Greek grammar texts that I own or have found in local libraries:
A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, Robertson, A. T., and Davis, W. Hershey (New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931):
A Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, rev. & improved ed., Religious Tract Society (Piccadilly: n.p.):
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament by Daniel B. Wallace (Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1996):
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R., (New York: Macmillan):
This grammar by Dana and Mantey is especially noteworthy, because the passage abover from their p.148 was cited years ago in a Watchtower publication in support of their “the word was a god” rendering. The commenter on this blog even used the same passage in Mantey’s grammar to try to support the “a god” rendering. Therefore a bit of explanation is in order.
The citation in question is the sentence on p.148 where Dana and Mantey rend a sentence from Xenophon as “the place was a market” calling it “a parallel case.” The Watchtower is wrong for the following reasons.
First, note that the paragraph is talking about “the subject in a copulative sentence.” The subject in the passage in question is the Word, while God is the predicate. So Mantey is making a point about logos, not theos. Second, saying “the place was market” is not typically meaningful in English, while “the word was God” is a meaningful sentence. Third, the paragraph is making a point about “the other persons of the Trinity is implied in theos” which is in direct disagreement to the Watchtower. Fourth, the rest of the quotes from Mantey’s grammar show that the book disagrees with the Watchtower.
Fifth, Mantey clarified exactly what he meant in his letter to the Watchtower:
humblesmith.wordpress.com
believersweb.org
A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, Robertson, A. T., and Davis, W. Hershey (New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931):
The Minister and His Greek New Testament, Robertson, A. T. (Grand Rapids: Baker):
The Watchtower insists that if Jesus were to be God Almighty, the text would have to have said, in effect, “the word was the God.” Here, Robertson is saying that if the Greek were to say “the word was the God”, then it would say that the Father and Jesus are one and the same person with no distinction in any way whatsoever, a heresy taught by Sabelius and continued today by Oneness Pentecostals.
A Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, rev. & improved ed., Religious Tract Society (Piccadilly: n.p.):
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament by Daniel B. Wallace (Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1996):
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R., (New York: Macmillan):
This grammar by Dana and Mantey is especially noteworthy, because the passage abover from their p.148 was cited years ago in a Watchtower publication in support of their “the word was a god” rendering. The commenter on this blog even used the same passage in Mantey’s grammar to try to support the “a god” rendering. Therefore a bit of explanation is in order.
The citation in question is the sentence on p.148 where Dana and Mantey rend a sentence from Xenophon as “the place was a market” calling it “a parallel case.” The Watchtower is wrong for the following reasons.
First, note that the paragraph is talking about “the subject in a copulative sentence.” The subject in the passage in question is the Word, while God is the predicate. So Mantey is making a point about logos, not theos. Second, saying “the place was market” is not typically meaningful in English, while “the word was God” is a meaningful sentence. Third, the paragraph is making a point about “the other persons of the Trinity is implied in theos” which is in direct disagreement to the Watchtower. Fourth, the rest of the quotes from Mantey’s grammar show that the book disagrees with the Watchtower.
Fifth, Mantey clarified exactly what he meant in his letter to the Watchtower:
For the complete letter, see here.
Greek Scholars and the Watchtower
I have written on the books written by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, specifically their rendering of John 1:1c, “the word was a god” when all English translations have “the Word was God” or similar. One…
humblesmith.wordpress.com
Jehovah’s Witnesses misquote Greek scholars | The Believers Web
believersweb.org
"New World Translation" DELETES WHOLE VERSES!
"New World Translation" DELETES WHOLE VERSES!
www.catholicapologetics.info
The Missing Verses from the New World Translation
The Missing Verses provides evidence more than 30 verses are missing from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Jehovah's Witnesses bible.
avoidjw.org
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Clearly you never bothered to study the Outline of the Trinity I posted often enough.
Also, The early church fathers who were taught by the apostles believed too that Jesus is God.
I feel sorry for you all. You need to follow the real Jesus. https://www.calvarychapelboston.com/Biblical Basis Trinity Bowman.pdf
The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Apologetics Home - Apologetics.com
This is the place to obtain relevant resources on cultural apologetics. Check out our articles, podcasts, and other related material.
www.apologetics.com
It is often alleged that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. While the word Trinity
is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical.
The following outline study presents an overview of the biblical basis of the doctrine of the
Trinity. Comments on the texts have been kept to a bare minimum; the emphasis is on the many
biblical texts themselves (about 700 references are listed, including references from 26 of the 27
books of the New Testament).
An exposition of many of the texts discussed here can be found in the author's book Why You
Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989). Unfortunately, it is
currently out of print, but you may be able to locate a copy through Amazon.com's out-of-print
service.
Aproper evaluation of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity will depend on the
faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation. Here I will mention just two
principles which, if followed, would prevent almost all interpretive errors on this subject.
The first is to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. That is, texts that explicitly state that
such-and-such is true are to govern our understanding of passages that do not address the issue
directly. For example, many passages of the Bible state explicitly that God is omniscient, that is,
that he knows all things, including the thoughts of men and all future events (1 Sam. 16:7; 1
Chron. 28:9, 17; Job 37:16; Psa. 139:1-4; Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10a). These texts
must govern our understanding of passages which might seem to imply, but which do not assert,
that God did not know something (e.g., Gen. 3:9-13; 4:9; 18:9, 20-21).
The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. Using the same
illustration, if God knows everything ahead of time, then logically He must have known that
Adam and Eve would fall into sin. However, to argue that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin
then they would not be responsible for their choosing to sin is not "logical," is rationalistic. It
may be difficult to understand how persons could be responsible for their sinful actions if God
knew ahead of time that they would sin, but it is not illogical (not self-contradictory) to say so.
It should be noted that a study of the Trinity should not be undertaken apart from a study of the
nature of God.
I. There Is One God
A. One God: Explicit Statements
1. OT: Deut. 4:35; 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20: 43:10;
44:6-8; 45:5; 14; 21-22; 46:9
2. NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph.
4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25
B. None like God (in his essence)
1. Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs.
8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Psa. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25: 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer.
10:6-7; Micah 7:18
2. Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Isa. 14:14; John 8:44
3. Fallen man become "like God" only in that he took upon himself
to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22
C. Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John
5:20-21
D. All other "gods" are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut.
32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Psa. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1
Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20
E. Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Psa.
106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8
F. How human beings are meant to be "like God"
1. The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and
share his moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like
God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
2. The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only:
a. Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom.
8:29
b. Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like
His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49
3. Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral
nature ("having escaped the corruption that is in the world by
lust"), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on
the meaning of "partakers," see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1
Pet. 5:1
G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?
1. Scripture never says explicitly that men are gods
2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek.
28:2, 9; Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4
3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19;
Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts
12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2
4. Moses was "as God," not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1
5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as "mighty gods," but
in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God
or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God
Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex.
22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17
7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked
judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men
really can be gods.
a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges
elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even
though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.
b. Asaph's meaning is not "Although you are gods,
you will die like men," but rather "I called you
gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that
you really are"
c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked
judges were truly gods than he was saying that they
were truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b)
d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony.
They had quite likely taken their role in judgment
(cf. point 5 above) to mean they were elohim, or
gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called
gods were mere men who would die under the
judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)
e. Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does
not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82
f. The words, "The Scripture cannot be broken,"
means "the Scripture cannot go without having
some ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt.
5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges
were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what
they could not do, and is what they could never be
(see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and
1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT
Scripture)
g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God
came" (John 10:35) shows that this "word" was a
word of judgment against the so-called gods; which
shows that they were false gods, not really gods at
all
such-and-such is true are to govern our understanding of passages that do not address the issue
directly. For example, many passages of the Bible state explicitly that God is omniscient, that is,
that he knows all things, including the thoughts of men and all future events (1 Sam. 16:7; 1
Chron. 28:9, 17; Job 37:16; Psa. 139:1-4; Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10a). These texts
must govern our understanding of passages which might seem to imply, but which do not assert,
that God did not know something (e.g., Gen. 3:9-13; 4:9; 18:9, 20-21).
The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. Using the same
illustration, if God knows everything ahead of time, then logically He must have known that
Adam and Eve would fall into sin. However, to argue that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin
then they would not be responsible for their choosing to sin is not "logical," is rationalistic. It
may be difficult to understand how persons could be responsible for their sinful actions if God
knew ahead of time that they would sin, but it is not illogical (not self-contradictory) to say so.
It should be noted that a study of the Trinity should not be undertaken apart from a study of the
nature of God.
I. There Is One God
A. One God: Explicit Statements
1. OT: Deut. 4:35; 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20: 43:10;
44:6-8; 45:5; 14; 21-22; 46:9
2. NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph.
4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25
B. None like God (in his essence)
1. Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs.
8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Psa. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25: 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer.
10:6-7; Micah 7:18
2. Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Isa. 14:14; John 8:44
3. Fallen man become "like God" only in that he took upon himself
to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22
C. Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John
5:20-21
D. All other "gods" are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut.
32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Psa. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1
Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20
E. Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Psa.
106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8
F. How human beings are meant to be "like God"
1. The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and
share his moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like
God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
2. The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only:
a. Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom.
8:29
b. Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like
His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49
3. Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral
nature ("having escaped the corruption that is in the world by
lust"), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on
the meaning of "partakers," see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1
Pet. 5:1
G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?
1. Scripture never says explicitly that men are gods
2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek.
28:2, 9; Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4
3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19;
Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts
12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2
4. Moses was "as God," not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1
5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as "mighty gods," but
in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God
or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God
Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex.
22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17
7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked
judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men
really can be gods.
a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges
elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even
though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.
b. Asaph's meaning is not "Although you are gods,
you will die like men," but rather "I called you
gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that
you really are"
c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked
judges were truly gods than he was saying that they
were truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b)
d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony.
They had quite likely taken their role in judgment
(cf. point 5 above) to mean they were elohim, or
gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called
gods were mere men who would die under the
judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)
e. Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does
not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82
f. The words, "The Scripture cannot be broken,"
means "the Scripture cannot go without having
some ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt.
5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges
were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what
they could not do, and is what they could never be
(see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and
1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT
Scripture)
g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God
came" (John 10:35) shows that this "word" was a
word of judgment against the so-called gods; which
shows that they were false gods, not really gods at
all
h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not
"godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case
the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as
figurative, not literal
8. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be
irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before
creation: John 1:1
H. Are angels gods?
1. Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods
2. Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being
"mighty spirits" does not make angels gods
3. Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4
4. Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods
a. Psa. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted
literally (cf. Psa. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Psa. 8:5,
elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Psa.
8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8 16, 26-28. Note that the
Psalmist is speaking of man's exalted place in
creation, whereas Hebrews is speaking of the lower
place taken by Christ in becoming a man. Thus,
Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods
at all.
b. Even if Heb. 2:7 does imply that angels are
"gods," in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels
would be those falsely exalted above Christ: Note
Heb. 1:6 (which quotes Psa. 97:7, which definitely
speaks of "gods" in the sense of false gods); and cf.
Col. 2:16 on the problem of the worship of angels.
5. Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as "sons
of the gods"), are considered false gods: Psa. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6;
95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called "angels"
in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut.
10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5.
6. Even if the angels were gods (which the above shows they are
not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic
being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their
Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13.
I. Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being false
gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature - all
of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly - then we must conclude that
there is indeed only one God.
II. This One God Is Known in the OT as "Jehovah/Yahweh" ("The Lord")
A. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Psa. 100:3;
etc.
B. Texts where the compound name "Jehovah God" (Yahweh Elohim) is
used: Gen. 2:3; 9:26; 24:3; Ex. 3:15-18; 4:4; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25; etc.
C. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29
D. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim
III. God Is a Unique, Incomprehensible Being
A. Only one God, thus unique: See I.A.
B. None are even like God: see I.B.
C. God cannot be fully comprehended: 1 Cor. 8:2-3
D. God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27;
John 1:18
E. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16
F. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe,
as the carpenter is distinct from the bench
1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24;
John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3
IV. Is God One Person?
A. God is one God (cf. I above), one Yahweh, one Lord (cf. II above), one
Spirit (John 4:24)
B. However, the Bible never says that God is "one person"
1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God's "person," but the word used here,
hupostasis, is translated "substance" in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in
Heb. 1:3 "God" refers specifically to the Father
2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between
God and man, not as one person
3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God's "person," but ironically the
Hebrew literally means "his faces"
C. The use of singular and plural pronouns for God
1. Over 7000 times God speaks or is spoken of with singular
pronouns (I, He, etc.); but this is proper because God is a single
individual being; thus these singular forms do not disprove that
God exists as three "persons" as long as these persons are not
separate beings
2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural
pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretation
cannot account for these occurrences.
a. A plural reference to God and the angels is
possible in Isa. 6:8, but not in the Genesis texts: in
1:26 "our image" is explained in 1:27, "in God's
image"; in 3:22 "like one of us" refers back to 3:5,
"like God."
b. The "literary plural" (possibly, though never
clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to texts in
which God is speaking, not writing.
c. The "plural of deliberation" (as in "Let's see
now...") is apparently unattested in biblical writings,
and cannot explain Gen. 3:22 ("like one of us").
d. The "plural of amplitude" or of "fullness" (which
probably does explain the use of the plural form
elohim in the singular sense of "God") is irrelevant
to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot
explain Gen. 3:22.
e. The "plural of majesty" is possibly attested in 1
Kgs. 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but
none of these are certain; and again, it cannot
explain Gen. 3:22; also nothing in the context of the
Genesis texts suggests that God is being presented
particularly as King.
D. The uniqueness of God (cf. III above) should prepare us for the possibility
that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons
"godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case
the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as
figurative, not literal
8. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be
irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before
creation: John 1:1
H. Are angels gods?
1. Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods
2. Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being
"mighty spirits" does not make angels gods
3. Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4
4. Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods
a. Psa. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted
literally (cf. Psa. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Psa. 8:5,
elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Psa.
8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8 16, 26-28. Note that the
Psalmist is speaking of man's exalted place in
creation, whereas Hebrews is speaking of the lower
place taken by Christ in becoming a man. Thus,
Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods
at all.
b. Even if Heb. 2:7 does imply that angels are
"gods," in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels
would be those falsely exalted above Christ: Note
Heb. 1:6 (which quotes Psa. 97:7, which definitely
speaks of "gods" in the sense of false gods); and cf.
Col. 2:16 on the problem of the worship of angels.
5. Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as "sons
of the gods"), are considered false gods: Psa. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6;
95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called "angels"
in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut.
10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5.
6. Even if the angels were gods (which the above shows they are
not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic
being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their
Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13.
I. Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being false
gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature - all
of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly - then we must conclude that
there is indeed only one God.
II. This One God Is Known in the OT as "Jehovah/Yahweh" ("The Lord")
A. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Psa. 100:3;
etc.
B. Texts where the compound name "Jehovah God" (Yahweh Elohim) is
used: Gen. 2:3; 9:26; 24:3; Ex. 3:15-18; 4:4; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25; etc.
C. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29
D. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim
III. God Is a Unique, Incomprehensible Being
A. Only one God, thus unique: See I.A.
B. None are even like God: see I.B.
C. God cannot be fully comprehended: 1 Cor. 8:2-3
D. God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27;
John 1:18
E. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16
F. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe,
as the carpenter is distinct from the bench
1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24;
John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3
IV. Is God One Person?
A. God is one God (cf. I above), one Yahweh, one Lord (cf. II above), one
Spirit (John 4:24)
B. However, the Bible never says that God is "one person"
1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God's "person," but the word used here,
hupostasis, is translated "substance" in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in
Heb. 1:3 "God" refers specifically to the Father
2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between
God and man, not as one person
3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God's "person," but ironically the
Hebrew literally means "his faces"
C. The use of singular and plural pronouns for God
1. Over 7000 times God speaks or is spoken of with singular
pronouns (I, He, etc.); but this is proper because God is a single
individual being; thus these singular forms do not disprove that
God exists as three "persons" as long as these persons are not
separate beings
2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural
pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretation
cannot account for these occurrences.
a. A plural reference to God and the angels is
possible in Isa. 6:8, but not in the Genesis texts: in
1:26 "our image" is explained in 1:27, "in God's
image"; in 3:22 "like one of us" refers back to 3:5,
"like God."
b. The "literary plural" (possibly, though never
clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to texts in
which God is speaking, not writing.
c. The "plural of deliberation" (as in "Let's see
now...") is apparently unattested in biblical writings,
and cannot explain Gen. 3:22 ("like one of us").
d. The "plural of amplitude" or of "fullness" (which
probably does explain the use of the plural form
elohim in the singular sense of "God") is irrelevant
to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot
explain Gen. 3:22.
e. The "plural of majesty" is possibly attested in 1
Kgs. 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but
none of these are certain; and again, it cannot
explain Gen. 3:22; also nothing in the context of the
Genesis texts suggests that God is being presented
particularly as King.
D. The uniqueness of God (cf. III above) should prepare us for the possibility
that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons
V. The Father of Jesus Christ Is God
A. Explicit statements: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.
B. The expression, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ": 2 Cor. 1:3;
Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3
VI. Jesus Christ Is God
A. Explicit statements
1. Isa. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render "mighty hero,"
are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek.
32:21 is (a) not in the same context, as is Isa. 10:21, and (b)
speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. above.
2. John 1:1 Even if Jesus is here called "a god" (as some have
argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However,
the "a god" rendering is incorrect. Other passages using the Greek
word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered
"God": Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil 2:13; Heb. 11:16.
Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos ("the God") to theos
("God") never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-
38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-
11
3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have "the unique God"
(monogenês, frequently rendered "only-begotten," actually means
"one of a kind," "unique," though in the NT always in the context
of a son or daughter). Even if one translates "only-begotten," the
idea is not of a "begotten god" as opposed to an "unbegotten god."
4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, where the same construction is
used in the plural ("our") instead of the singular ("my"). See also
Psa. 35:23. Note that Christ's response indicates that Thomas'
acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show
that the Father was Jesus' "God" (due to Jesus becoming a man),
but the words "my God" as spoken by Thomas later in the same
chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to
Jesus in His humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as
well).
5. Acts 20:28: "the church of God which He purchased with His
own blood." The variant readings (e.g. "the church of the Lord")
show that the original was understood to mean "His own blood,"
not "the blood of His own [Son]" (since otherwise no one would
have thought to change it). Thus all other renderings are attempts
to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.
6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible
interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as
well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the
identification of Christ as "God" in this verse.
7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the
strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule,
properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our
great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev.
1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the
word "manifestation" ("appearing") of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim.
6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8.
8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, "God is your throne," is nonsense -
God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne! Also,
"God is your throne," if taken to mean God is the source of one's
rule, could be said about any angelic ruler - but Hebrews 1 is
arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels.
9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13;
see the parallel passages in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18.
10. 1 John 5:20. Note that the most obvious antecedent for "this" is
Jesus Christ. Also note that the "eternal life" is Christ, as can be
seen from 1:2.
A. Explicit statements: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.
B. The expression, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ": 2 Cor. 1:3;
Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3
VI. Jesus Christ Is God
A. Explicit statements
1. Isa. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render "mighty hero,"
are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek.
32:21 is (a) not in the same context, as is Isa. 10:21, and (b)
speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. above.
2. John 1:1 Even if Jesus is here called "a god" (as some have
argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However,
the "a god" rendering is incorrect. Other passages using the Greek
word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered
"God": Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil 2:13; Heb. 11:16.
Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos ("the God") to theos
("God") never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-
38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-
11
3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have "the unique God"
(monogenês, frequently rendered "only-begotten," actually means
"one of a kind," "unique," though in the NT always in the context
of a son or daughter). Even if one translates "only-begotten," the
idea is not of a "begotten god" as opposed to an "unbegotten god."
4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, where the same construction is
used in the plural ("our") instead of the singular ("my"). See also
Psa. 35:23. Note that Christ's response indicates that Thomas'
acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show
that the Father was Jesus' "God" (due to Jesus becoming a man),
but the words "my God" as spoken by Thomas later in the same
chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to
Jesus in His humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as
well).
5. Acts 20:28: "the church of God which He purchased with His
own blood." The variant readings (e.g. "the church of the Lord")
show that the original was understood to mean "His own blood,"
not "the blood of His own [Son]" (since otherwise no one would
have thought to change it). Thus all other renderings are attempts
to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.
6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible
interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as
well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the
identification of Christ as "God" in this verse.
7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the
strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule,
properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our
great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev.
1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the
word "manifestation" ("appearing") of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim.
6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8.
8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, "God is your throne," is nonsense -
God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne! Also,
"God is your throne," if taken to mean God is the source of one's
rule, could be said about any angelic ruler - but Hebrews 1 is
arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels.
9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13;
see the parallel passages in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18.
10. 1 John 5:20. Note that the most obvious antecedent for "this" is
Jesus Christ. Also note that the "eternal life" is Christ, as can be
seen from 1:2.
B. Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh
1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated "for," which links these verses
closely together. The "Lord" of 10:13 must be the "Lord" of 10:9,
12.
2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the "name that is above every name" is
"Lord" (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.
3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," in
a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person
addressed is called "God"). Since here the Father addresses the Son
as "Lord," this cannot be explained away as a text in which a
creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational
sense.
4. 1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa.
34:8a, where "Lord" is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear
that "the Lord" in v. 3 is Jesus.
5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15: these verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13,
where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.
6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the "one Lord" (cf. Deut. 6:4;
Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5.
C. Jesus has the titles of God
1. Titles belonging only to God
a. The first and the last: Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa.
44:6
b. King of kings and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6:15;
Rev. 17:14; 19:16
2. Titles belonging in the ultimate sense only to God
a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; Titus
2:13, cf. v. 10; etc.; cf. Isa. 43.11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim.
4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation;
Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Psa. 118:14, 21
b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Psa. 23:1;
Isa. 40:11
c. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8
D. Jesus received the honors due to God alone
1. Honor: John 5:23
2. Love: Matt. 10:37
3. Prayer: John 14:14 (text debated, but in any case it is Jesus who
answers the prayer); Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46);
Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8-10 (where "the Lord" must
be Jesus, cf. v. 9); 2 Thess. 2:16-17; etc.
4. Worship (proskuneô): Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6 (cf. Psa. 97:7); cf.
Matt 4:10
5. Religious or sacred service (latreuô): Rev. 22:13
6. Doxological praise: 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:13
7. Faith: John 3:16; 14:1; etc.
E. Jesus does the works of God
1. Creation: John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14
(where archê probably means ruler); on "through" and "in" cf.
Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 17:28; cf. also Isa. 44:24
2. Sustains the universe: Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3, 11-12
3. Salvation:
a. In General: See C.2.a. above
b. Forgives sins: Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke
5:17-26; note that Jesus forgives sins not committed
against Him.
4. All of them: John 5:17-29 (including judgment, cf. Matt. 25:31-
46; 2 Cor. 5:10)
F. Jesus has all the incommunicable attributes of God
1. All of them: John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15; 2:9; Heb. 1:3
2. Self-existent: John 5:26
3. Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12 (in the same sense as YHWH);
13:8
4. Eternal: John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2
5. Omnipresent: Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10;
Col. 3:11
6. Omniscient: John 16:30; 21:17; cf. 2:23-24
7. Incomprehensible: Matt. 11:25-27
G. Jesus is "equal with God"
1. John 5:18: Although John is relating what the Jews understood
Jesus to be claiming, the context shows they were basically right:
In v. 17 claimed to be exempt from the Sabbath along with His
Father, and in 5:19-29 Jesus claimed to do all of the world of the
Father and to deserve the same honor as the Father
2. Phil. 2:6: Jesus did not attempt to seize recognition by the world
as being equal with God, but attained that recognition by humbling
himself and being exalted by the Father (vv. 7-11)
H. Jesus is the Son of God
1. "Son" in Scripture can mean simply one possessing the nature of
something, whether literal or figurative (e.g. "Son of man," "sons
of thunder," "sons of disobedience," cf. Mark 3:7; Eph. 2:1).
2. Usually when "son of" is used in relation to a person (son of
man, son of Abraham, son of David, etc.) the son possesses the
nature of his father.
3. Jesus is clearly not the literal Son of God, i.e., He was not
physically procreated by God.
4. On the other hand, Jesus is clearly the Son of God in a unique
sense (cf. "only-begotten son," John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and
in a preeminent sense (i.e. the term is more fitting for Him than for
anyone else).
5. Scripture is explicit that the Son possesses God's essence or
nature (cf. F. above).
6. Jesus' repeated claim to be the Son of God was consistently
understood by the Jewish leaders as a blasphemous claim to
equality with God, an understanding Jesus never denied: John
5:17-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-39; 19:7; Matt. 26:63-65.
1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated "for," which links these verses
closely together. The "Lord" of 10:13 must be the "Lord" of 10:9,
12.
2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the "name that is above every name" is
"Lord" (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.
3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," in
a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person
addressed is called "God"). Since here the Father addresses the Son
as "Lord," this cannot be explained away as a text in which a
creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational
sense.
4. 1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa.
34:8a, where "Lord" is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear
that "the Lord" in v. 3 is Jesus.
5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15: these verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13,
where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.
6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the "one Lord" (cf. Deut. 6:4;
Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5.
C. Jesus has the titles of God
1. Titles belonging only to God
a. The first and the last: Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa.
44:6
b. King of kings and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6:15;
Rev. 17:14; 19:16
2. Titles belonging in the ultimate sense only to God
a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; Titus
2:13, cf. v. 10; etc.; cf. Isa. 43.11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim.
4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation;
Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Psa. 118:14, 21
b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Psa. 23:1;
Isa. 40:11
c. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8
D. Jesus received the honors due to God alone
1. Honor: John 5:23
2. Love: Matt. 10:37
3. Prayer: John 14:14 (text debated, but in any case it is Jesus who
answers the prayer); Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46);
Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8-10 (where "the Lord" must
be Jesus, cf. v. 9); 2 Thess. 2:16-17; etc.
4. Worship (proskuneô): Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6 (cf. Psa. 97:7); cf.
Matt 4:10
5. Religious or sacred service (latreuô): Rev. 22:13
6. Doxological praise: 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:13
7. Faith: John 3:16; 14:1; etc.
E. Jesus does the works of God
1. Creation: John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14
(where archê probably means ruler); on "through" and "in" cf.
Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 17:28; cf. also Isa. 44:24
2. Sustains the universe: Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3, 11-12
3. Salvation:
a. In General: See C.2.a. above
b. Forgives sins: Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke
5:17-26; note that Jesus forgives sins not committed
against Him.
4. All of them: John 5:17-29 (including judgment, cf. Matt. 25:31-
46; 2 Cor. 5:10)
F. Jesus has all the incommunicable attributes of God
1. All of them: John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15; 2:9; Heb. 1:3
2. Self-existent: John 5:26
3. Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12 (in the same sense as YHWH);
13:8
4. Eternal: John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2
5. Omnipresent: Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10;
Col. 3:11
6. Omniscient: John 16:30; 21:17; cf. 2:23-24
7. Incomprehensible: Matt. 11:25-27
G. Jesus is "equal with God"
1. John 5:18: Although John is relating what the Jews understood
Jesus to be claiming, the context shows they were basically right:
In v. 17 claimed to be exempt from the Sabbath along with His
Father, and in 5:19-29 Jesus claimed to do all of the world of the
Father and to deserve the same honor as the Father
2. Phil. 2:6: Jesus did not attempt to seize recognition by the world
as being equal with God, but attained that recognition by humbling
himself and being exalted by the Father (vv. 7-11)
H. Jesus is the Son of God
1. "Son" in Scripture can mean simply one possessing the nature of
something, whether literal or figurative (e.g. "Son of man," "sons
of thunder," "sons of disobedience," cf. Mark 3:7; Eph. 2:1).
2. Usually when "son of" is used in relation to a person (son of
man, son of Abraham, son of David, etc.) the son possesses the
nature of his father.
3. Jesus is clearly not the literal Son of God, i.e., He was not
physically procreated by God.
4. On the other hand, Jesus is clearly the Son of God in a unique
sense (cf. "only-begotten son," John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and
in a preeminent sense (i.e. the term is more fitting for Him than for
anyone else).
5. Scripture is explicit that the Son possesses God's essence or
nature (cf. F. above).
6. Jesus' repeated claim to be the Son of God was consistently
understood by the Jewish leaders as a blasphemous claim to
equality with God, an understanding Jesus never denied: John
5:17-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-39; 19:7; Matt. 26:63-65.
Similar threads
