"The word was a god"?

[DavidB]

As has been shown, even Greek scholars disagree on the grammar of John 1:1. There are trinitarian translators who feel the absence of the definite article before Theos in John 1:1c distinguishes it from the previous usage that has the definite article. This leaves John 1:1 as just another trinitarian proof text shrouded in doubt. Interestingly the translation of John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 11:3, 15:27 & 28 and so many others is not controversial.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Jehovahs witness version says 'a god'

And that is a more accurate translation because of what "theos" means in Greek.
Look it up in Strongs Concordance.....its primary definition is "a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities".

The Greeks were polytheists and if a god had no name, they had no word for a nameless god. The Jews had ceased using the divine name so the Greek language had a shortfall there because of another disobedience of the Jewish leadership. They were never to stop using God's name. (Exodus 3:14-15) Hence the Greeks used the definite article to identify the "one nameless God" of the Jews, making him "ho theos" rather than just "theos".

If you look at John 1:1 in Greek you will see an omission that is very visible once it is pointed out. One little word left out changed the whole meaning of that one verse.
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."
You can see "ho" four times in that verse.....it is visible in the first mention of God (ho theos) but it is omitted in the second mention of "theos".
There are two divine beings mentioned in that verse.....only one of them is Jehovah.
It was "ho logos" who became flesh, not "ho theos". (John 1:2, 14)

The Word was God vs. A God

The Jehovah Witnesses’ (New World) Translation says, “…and the Word was a god.” This is because they say that ‘a’ may be added since “Θεός” (God) doesn’t have an article. But what their “Greek Scholars” must have forgotten from their advanced Greek class is that “καὶ Θεός” is a “predicate nominative”. In other words, it doesn’t take an article because it’s not the subject – the subject is “The Word” (ὁ λόγος).


Another reason why “Θεός” does not have an article is because “God” is a proper name, and proper names don’t take articles.(why θεόν takes an article? I’m not completely sure, but I’m guessing because it’s using God’s name as a title, not His direct name. Only in the latter part of the verse is it used as His actual name (and title). But again, the literal translation could put a “the” here, and my point would remain the same).

What a load of rubbish. The question lies in the definition of "theos" which I have posted more times than I care to count.
Other people's ignorance is not our problem....if you guys want to believe that Jesus ever said he was God, that is up to you....but we see that as a breach of the First Commandment....putting other gods in Jehovah's place. (Exodus 20:3)

Christendom has three gods.....it is JW's who have only one. Jesus is a servant of his God and Father (Acts 4:27).....if you can get a trinity out of that then that is up to you. You don't seem to be able to discern the difference between "deity" and "divinity". One is God and the other is from God or has been authorized by him.

"God", like "Lord" is a title, not a name. God has only one name (Psalm 83:18) but Christendom doesn't like it, and won't use it.....that is not our problem either. Like many other Hebrew names in scripture, it has an English translation or equivalent.
When Jesus prayed that his Father's name be "hallowed", it is hard to sanctify a name you never use. (John 17:6, 26; John 10:25)

Christendom has removed the divine name from their Bibles and replaced it with a title, which God neither commanded, nor did he ever say that it was too sacred to utter as long as it was not used in a way that brought reproach on Him. As the inventor of language, the Creator knows his name in every tongue.

To remove the author's name from his own book is the height of insult. What human author would tolerate such a thing, replacing his name with just a title "Author". It was God who gave his name to man, not man who gave a name to God.

If the divine name had still been in use, the trinity could never have been adopted.
John 1:1 would have read...
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Jehovah, and the Word was divine." The divine "son of God" would have remained what he said he was.

 

[Jack]

This is where you are wrong they do not teach Jesus is a God, but the Son of God Jehovah. Please do not make false accusations, that would be bearing false witness against thy neighbor.

How can that be when the JW Bible says "the word was a god"?

 

[Jack]

I explained how three persons are one, and how that is different from polytheism.

With all possible respect, JW denying that Jesus Christ is God is a big deal. Many would say even a damning issue.

Yes indeed!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

So believing that Jesus is God sends people to hell? I guess you are preaching the gospel backwards.

You're denying the person who is the Father and God of Jesus, that person is YHWH God, and you're calling Jesus Christ a liar, because he said, even after his resurrection, that he has a Father and God, that is his apostles and disciples Father and God, that person is YHWH God. YHWH God has an only begotten son that he sent to the world of mankind as a human to pay the ransom price to buy back what the first Adam lost for his offspring. That only begotten son was given the name Jesus when he became human.
Let's understand something clearly, we all go to hell when we die. Hell when used in the scriptures is an English word that translates the Greek word Hades which was used to translate the Hebrew word Sheol. Sheol was a word that represents the place of the dead, where both the righteous and unrighteous went to sleep in death until the resurrection. So Sheol, Hades, and Hell represent the same place, the place of he dead, where both righteous and unrighteous go when they die, to sleep in death until the resurrection. So as I said, we all go to hell when we die, It's not some place of fiery torment where only the unrighteous go.

 

[JohnPaul]

How can that be when your own Bible says "the word was a god"?

My own Bible, which Bible is that?

Read Aunty Jane's post above to answer your question "the word was a god"

 

[dhh712]

You're denying the person who is the Father and God of Jesus, that person is YHWH God, and you're calling Jesus Christ a liar, because he said, even after his resurrection, that he has a Father and God, that is his apostles and disciples Father and God, that person is YHWH God. YHWH God has an only begotten son that he sent to the world of mankind as a human to pay the ransom price to buy back what the first Adam lost for his offspring. That only begotten son was given the name Jesus when he became human.
Let's understand something clearly, we all go to hell when we die. Hell when used in the scriptures is an English word that translates the Greek word Hades which was used to translate the Hebrew word Sheol. Sheol was a word that represents the place of the dead, where both the righteous and unrighteous went to sleep in death until the resurrection. So Sheol, Hades, and Hell represent the same place, the place of he dead, where both righteous and unrighteous go when they die, to sleep in death until the resurrection. So as I said, we all go to hell when we die, It's not some place of fiery torment where only the unrighteous go.

Well, whatever place it's called, my soul will be united to Jesus my God when I die as my husband's is; my body will rest where it is until the day of resurrection.

No one is saying that Jesus is not the Son of God; that is blindingly clear in God's revelation of himself. What we're saying is that that means he is God. No one can be a descendent of something that does not share their nature. What people are trying to understand and what can never be understood by us because God is a complex being that cannot be completely (note I said *completely*--I once stated this on an earlier post and one person replied to it skipping entirely over that very vital word to the meaning of what I'm saying) by us because we have finite minds and God is an infinite being, is the Trinity (which a lot of people on here deny because it is not clearly stated in the Bible. Then you might as well be like the Sadducees and deny the Resurrection--and whom Jesus stated outright that they were wrong--because that's not clearly stated in God's word either). No one will ever be able to encompass God's being entirely in their understanding. It is impossible. We know God as much as he has given of himself to know. It is not an exhaustive knowledge. Those who do believe they have exhaustive knowledge of God are sorely deluded, and make out God to be way too small--a replica of their own human self.

I've said all I have to say on this topic. As I stated in my previous post we will all find out very, very quickly at the end of our short lives. We will stand before our maker and find out if Jesus is truly divine. I have cast my lot with the word of truth which proclaims Jesus to be the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, eternally begotten of the Father--God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God. Begotten, not made. Being of one substance with the Father. A whole bunch of people astronomically more intelligent than I am whom God has given his Spirit (the third person of the Trinity, who proceeds from the Father and Son who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets) to understand his word and explain what it means has helped me to understand the Scriptures. If you think you're more intelligent than they are, you're sadly mistaken most likely. Intelligence has dropped down quite exponentially these past couple hundred of years (if you need proof of that I can send you an Algebra question from D.H. Hill's Algebra text book and I challenge you to come up with the answer). Not that intelligence confirms the right interpretation of God's word, but there are many things in God's revelation that are difficult to understand and it does take a quite a bit of intelligence to objectively interpret it correctly. The basics are quite plain--that Jesus died for our sins and that all who come to him and trust in his work to be saved will be reconciled to God.

Now God is very merciful so whether you understand Jesus to be God or not--I'm not sure how God will judge you for that. To me it's quite plain that only God could be the perfect being which was needed to be sacrificed in order to atone for our sins. But perhaps he will allow for some misunderstanding in that way. I leave the judgment to him as that's the only being that will judge. I've said what I said (I feel to say anything further will be just to repeat over and over again what I'm saying, and my time is much too limited for that. So, whatever you have to say to my post, great. I wish you peace). Each soul is accountable to his or her own master. God will judge.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Well, whatever place it's called, my soul will be united to Jesus my God when I die as my husband's is; my body will rest where it is until the day of resurrection.

No one is saying that Jesus is not the Son of God; that is blindingly clear in God's revelation of himself. What we're saying is that that means he is God. No one can be a descendent of something that does not share their nature. What people are trying to understand and what can never be understood by us because God is a complex being that cannot be completely (note I said *completely*--I once stated this on an earlier post and one person replied to it skipping entirely over that very vital word to the meaning of what I'm saying) by us because we have finite minds and God is an infinite being, is the Trinity (which a lot of people on here deny because it is not clearly stated in the Bible. Then you might as well be like the Sadducees and deny the Resurrection--and whom Jesus stated outright that they were wrong--because that's not clearly stated in God's word either). No one will ever be able to encompass God's being entirely in their understanding. It is impossible. We know God as much as he has given of himself to know. It is not an exhaustive knowledge. Those who do believe they have exhaustive knowledge of God are sorely deluded, and make out God to be way too small--a replica of their own human self.

I've said all I have to say on this topic. As I stated in my previous post we will all find out very, very quickly at the end of our short lives. We will stand before our maker and find out if Jesus is truly divine. I have cast my lot with the word of truth which proclaims Jesus to be the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, eternally begotten of the Father--God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God. Begotten, not made. Being of one substance with the Father. A whole bunch of people astronomically more intelligent than I am whom God has given his Spirit (the third person of the Trinity, who proceeds from the Father and Son who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets) to understand his word and explain what it means has helped me to understand the Scriptures. If you think you're more intelligent than they are, you're sadly mistaken most likely. Intelligence has dropped down quite exponentially these past couple hundred of years (if you need proof of that I can send you an Algebra question from D.H. Hill's Algebra text book and I challenge you to come up with the answer). Not that intelligence confirms the right interpretation of God's word, but there are many things in God's revelation that are difficult to understand and it does take a quite a bit of intelligence to objectively interpret it correctly. The basics are quite plain--that Jesus died for our sins and that all who come to him and trust in his work to be saved will be reconciled to God.

Now God is very merciful so whether you understand Jesus to be God or not--I'm not sure how God will judge you for that. To me it's quite plain that only God could be the perfect being which was needed to be sacrificed in order to atone for our sins. But perhaps he will allow for some misunderstanding in that way. I leave the judgment to him as that's the only being that will judge. I've said what I said (I feel to say anything further will be just to repeat over and over again what I'm saying, and my time is much too limited for that. So, whatever you have to say to my post, great. I wish you peace). Each soul is accountable to his or her own master. God will judge.

Jesus wasn't God, there's things that are impossible for God to do. One of those things that's impossible for God to do is it's impossible for God to die. The only begotten son of God who was given the name Jesus when he came to mankind as a human being wasn't God because that person who is God, it's impossible for him to die. Jesus was a 100% human being when he came to mankind. He wasn't some God-Man. Like I said the living person who is God, it's impossible for him to die. A human being grows old and dies, and a human being is a living person, so when any human being grows old and dies that living person dies, he/she ceases to exist. It's impossible for the living person, who is God, to cease to exist.

 

[Taken]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

Every part of your Body, IS you.
..To speak of your Lungs, or your Thumb, is simply speaking of specific parts that IS you.

Every part of God, IS God.
..TO speak of Gods Hand, or Gods Word, is simply speaking of specific parts that IS God.

If a man chooses to name his biceps, “big guns”, and name his feet “boats”...that’s his prerogative.

If God chooses to name his WORD, “Jesus”, and his POWER “Christ”...that’s His prerogative.

We have via use of common era, and advanced technology, ability to send our own words where we please, orally, written letters, text, telephone, microphone, sky writing, etc.

God has via His power ability to send His Word where He pleases, in a “manner and fashion” He pleases. Appear in visions, Appear in a fashion that looks like an animal, that looks like a man, that looks like a burning bush.

A mans power can be measured, extent or limit per a law. Or extent or limit per force of strength/ weight/ pounds/ etc. A mans power can be “acquiesced” to an other.

God has no limit of His Power. Gods Power can be “WITH” a man. Gods Power can be “IN” a man. However Gods Power remains continually His.

1 Cor 1:
[24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Hope that helps,
Glory to God,

Taken

 

[RedFan]

OK, but lets clarify this one point...
Was Paul quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 when he spoke the words recorded in 1 Corinthians 10:9?
Deuteronomy 6:16...
“You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. (NASB)
Complete Tanakh....
"You shall not try the Lord, your God, as you tried Him in Massah. טזלֹ֣א תְנַסּ֔וּ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֑ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר נִסִּיתֶ֖ם בַּמַּסָּֽה:"
Who was "the Lord your God" to the Jews? Yahweh is there in the Hebrew text....right?

1 Corinthians 10:9....
"Nor are we to put the Lord to the test, as some of them did, and were killed by the snakes."

Strongs cites "kyrios" as meaning.....
"κύριος kýrios, koo'-ree-os; from κῦρος kŷros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):—God, Lord, master, Sir."
Relying then on the definition of the word "god" (theos) we can see that calling someone a "god" in some cases does not mean a deity, but can mean someone who has attained divine authority, such as those mentioned by Jesus in John 10:34-36, where Jesus speaks of human judges in Israel being called "gods" by his own Father, whereas he identified himself simply as "the son of God".

So who led Paul to believe that Jesus was Yahweh?
How does he write at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, speaking for himself and the other apostles...
"For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (NASB)

Do you see the problem here? Where did Paul ever say that Jesus was his God? If he and the other apostles agreed that Yahweh (the Father) was their God, then obviously something is wrong with the translation....or the interpretation of the translation you are suggesting....?

You are straying from the point, Aunty. I have never claimed that Paul thought of or didn't think of Jesus as his God, and I don't care to debate that issue with you. In fact, I'm not interested in debating whether Jesus is God, regardless of the opinions of one Paul of Tarsus on the subject. Those are your issues, not mine -- and if you convince the world of the soundness of your views, God bless you. Go for it. Meanwhile, I have posted for one reason only, and it is to say this: regardless of the soundness of the NWT's translation of John 1:1 or any other verse, the NWT's translation of 1 Cor. 10:9 is total crap. No Greek scholar worth his salt would translate "Christos" as "Jehovah" (unless, perhaps, he was furthering a theological agenda and didn't care about what Paul's literal words actually say.)

I close with an observation. The word "quote" has a definite meaning, although it seems you and I may not agree on it. Paul was not "quoting" Deut. 6:16 because "Christos" isn't found in any then-existing Greek text of Deut. 6:16 and, more importantly, the meaning of "Christos" ("anointed one") is not even remotely a proper translation of יְהוָ֖ה in the Hebrew text of Deut. 6:16. Paul substituted a word (Christos, NOT Kyrios) -- I won't get into his reasons for doing so -- and that substitution precludes 1 Cor. 10:9 from being a "quote" of Deut. 6:16. An allusion to Deut. 6:16? Sure. A quote of Deut. 6:16? No.

If you want to debate why Paul made the substitution in his allusion, you'll need to find someone else. I won't debate the theology with you. But I will happily debate the translation with you, if there is anything more to be said on that subject. Frankly, I doubt there is. If the best you've got is a syllogism that makes no sense (a. "Jehovah" is often translated as "Lord;" b. "Christ" is often called "Lord;" therefore, c. "Christ" may fairly be translated as "Jehovah."), then we're done.

 

[PinSeeker]

You mean God with a capital G, Jesus is the son of God, not God himself...

That He's not the Father is not disputed, JohnPaul. That Jesus is the Son of God is not disputed. But Jesus is also, JohnPaul, the Son of Man, as He Himself said. So, the question(s) then is (are), is He neither God nor man, and thus... something else? Or is He both?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[APAK]

That He's not the Father is not disputed, JohnPaul. That Jesus is the Son of God is not disputed. But Jesus is also, JohnPaul, the Son of Man, as He Himself said. So, the question(s) then is (are), is He neither God nor man, and thus... something else? Or is He both?

Grace and peace to you.

take this as a passive input that is not meant to interrupt your discussion with JP:
There's a 3rd option and the one I believe in. Jesus is a man (son of man) who uniquely from conception, possessed(es) the (W)word and spirit of God, his Father, within his human spirit; even as an immortal today.

I do not expect any feedback. I was just eager to contribute...

 

[Scott Downey]

That He's not the Father is not disputed, JohnPaul. That Jesus is the Son of God is not disputed. But Jesus is also, JohnPaul, the Son of Man, as He Himself said. So, the question(s) then is (are), is He neither God nor man, and thus... something else? Or is He both?

Grace and peace to you.

Jesus tells us that HE is in the FATHER, and the Father is in HIM
Here the JEWS want to kill Christ who has made Himself equal with God, they say exactly make yourself GOD.
This age old question, Jesus answered long ago. And it is shows as a division, a dividing line between believers and unbelievers. Christ and God are one by HIM saying this. And Christ also says this in other places. Even the unbelieving JEWS recognized that by what Christ said, this made Him God.

John 10
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Or maybe what I said wasn't what you wanted to hear.....?
Yahweh is "one"...not three. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

That's what I said, but you didn't understand the truth. What you are actually doing is specifically denying Jesus as God.

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

 

[PinSeeker]

take this as a passive input that is not meant to interrupt your discussion with JP...

There's really not any discussion at this point. What I asked JP was really a rhetorical question.

There's a 3rd option and the one I believe in. Jesus is a man (son of man) who uniquely from conception, possessed(es) the (W)word and spirit of God, his Father, within his human spirit; even as an immortal today.

There is no third option, APAK. As the Son of God and the Son of Man, Jesus, during His life on earth, was both in the form of God and in the form of man. He is God... always was and always will be; He never changes, as Hebrews 13:8 says... but took on, for a time, the form of man for our sake, accomplishing redemption for us by His death on the cross. This is how it is possible for Him to be, what qualifies Him as, our Mediator. If He were not God in the flesh, if in Him the whole fullness of deity had not dwelt bodily, we would not be born again but still dead in our sins and without hope of redemption.

I was just eager to contribute...

I'll bet you were...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[amigo de christo]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

It means dont believe the JW s .

 

[APAK]

There's really not any discussion at this point. What I asked JP was really a rhetorical question.


There is no third option, APAK. As the Son of God and the Son of Man, Jesus, during His life on earth, was both in the form of God and in the form of man. He is God... always was and always will be; He never changes, as Hebrews 13:8 says... but took on, for a time, the form of man for our sake, accomplishing redemption for us by His death on the cross. This is how it is possible for Him to be, what qualifies Him as, our Mediator. If He were not God in the flesh, if in Him the whole fullness of deity had not dwelt bodily, we would not be born again but still dead in our sins and without hope of redemption.


I'll bet you were...

Grace and peace to you.

I volunteer to agree to disagree concerning the so-called forms of Jesus as both God and a man; and yes it is a big deal...

 

[JohnPaul]

take this as a passive input that is not meant to interrupt your discussion with JP:
There's a 3rd option and the one I believe in. Jesus is a man (son of man) who uniquely from conception, possessed(es) the (W)word and spirit of God, his Father, within his human spirit; even as an immortal today.

I do not expect any feedback. I was just eager to contribute...

Thank you brother.

 

[teamventure]

If you believe in Christendom's "hell" then you have apparently swallowed all the other lies as well. There is no such place as "hell".
There is "hades"...."gehenna"...and the "lake of fire"....none of them involve beings who are alive in any way.

What makes you think that a loving God could torture living beings forever with no way to repent? That is not the God I worship. He has always been about love and forgiveness.......He is the one who gave his people only two options...."life or death"...never did he mention "heaven and hell" as opposite destinations.

Then you don't believe scripture.

 

[teamventure]

Oh a KJV team member....? No wonder thou dost not understandeth scripture.

Do you do study and research? Or do you just swallow the party line that has been fed to Christendom's disunited members for centuries without questioning anything? Do you know why they cannot agree?

Did it ever occur to you that the KJV is a translation...it was not actually written by God, but by men who were mostly trinitarians, and the bias in translation is so obvious when you know what you're looking at...hidden in plain sight. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

I question everything....because I was raised in Christendom.....I once believed what you believe, but it never sat well with me...so researched it all thoroughly and I know what I believe now, and why I believe it.

First of all we do NOT "deny that Jesus is the Christ". Who said that we did? We "deny that Jesus is God" because he never once said he was. Being the "Christ" doesn't make him God. It was his God who "anointed" him because that is what "Christ" means.
God did not anoint himself. He did not pray to himself, and he did not worship himself. If Jesus was God, he did all those things.

We believe that he is the "son of God" because that is what he called himself.....its really that simple. Ask Jesus who he is....

Then your sins remain on you according to scripture.

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.
John 8:24 KJV