- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:17) Crap! I am so mad at myself for falling into it yet again! I have followed you from a discussion about John 1:1 down the rabbit hole into a discussion about “everything at the speed of light”. Keith, is Jesus “THE GOD” he was WITH in John 1:1?
mike
Yep.John 1:1 says God was with God. Yet we know John only believed in “One God”.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:18) I worship and serve only “One Lord and God” Mike.
I worship and serve the only God that Jesus told us to worship and serve. Jesus said that One is the “only true God”. Hmmmmmmmmmm………….see how I follow the words of the one you want to make your God, and you don't?mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:16) When are you going to learn that God would not allow other gods in his Temple. That would surely be a violation of the commandments.
Well then, Jesus isn't allowed in God's temple either. Because he is a god who is NOT “the only True God”.mike
So Jesus is not “True God” Mike?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:12) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:02)
Could it be that there is no reliable information found in the “Arian” community?
What do we need our own source for? We can prove Jesus is not God Almighty using the information from your own scholars!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:17) Crap! I am so mad at myself for falling into it yet again! I have followed you from a discussion about John 1:1 down the rabbit hole into a discussion about “everything at the speed of light”. Keith, is Jesus “THE GOD” he was WITH in John 1:1?
mike
Yep.John 1:1 says God was with God. Yet we know John only believed in “One God”.
WJ
So John was saying that Jesus was WITH God Almighty and WAS God Almighty at the same time?And what do you think the definite article in 1:1b signifies? Why do you think the translators leave that word out? Do you agree with Kathi and I that it should not be omitted?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:18) I worship and serve only “One Lord and God” Mike.
I worship and serve the only God that Jesus told us to worship and serve. Jesus said that One is the “only true God”. Hmmmmmmmmmm………….see how I follow the words of the one you want to make your God, and you don't?mike
So you say but there are plenty of scriptures that show Jesus being worshipped with the same word that Jesus said was to be used on the Father.Who is following the scriptural examples Mike?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:16) When are you going to learn that God would not allow other gods in his Temple. That would surely be a violation of the commandments.
Well then, Jesus isn't allowed in God's temple either. Because he is a god who is NOT “the only True God”.mike
So Jesus is not “True God” Mike?WJ
Jesus is a “real” god. But like I've just asked Kathi, why would you want to make the words of Jesus himself null and void by calling another the “true” God, when Jesus said the Father is the only “true” God?mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:17) Crap! I am so mad at myself for falling into it yet again! I have followed you from a discussion about John 1:1 down the rabbit hole into a discussion about “everything at the speed of light”. Keith, is Jesus “THE GOD” he was WITH in John 1:1?
mike
Yep.John 1:1 says God was with God. Yet we know John only believed in “One God”.
WJ
So John was saying that Jesus was WITH God Almighty and WAS God Almighty at the same time?
Yes unless you can show us how John 1:1c is qualitatively less than John 1:1b. If Johns intent was the 2 “theos” were different he could have used another word but he didn't did he? But with the article he shows us they are two persons.The artcle was left out becasue it is understood that John 1:1b is the Father but that in no way means “theos” in John 1:1c means he is less than the Father in nature as God.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:16) When are you going to learn that God would not allow other gods in his Temple. That would surely be a violation of the commandments.
Well then, Jesus isn't allowed in God's temple either. Because he is a god who is NOT “the only True God”.mike
So Jesus is not “True God” Mike?WJ
Jesus is a “real” god. But like I've just asked Kathi, why would you want to make the words of Jesus himself null and void by calling another the “true” God, when Jesus said the Father is the only “true” God?mike
Because the Bible says Jesus is God and we know that he is the “Truth” or “True God” in every sense that the Father is.But you think that he is less “god” than the Father, and that is why it is a contradiction to your theology.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:18) I worship and serve only “One Lord and God” Mike.
I worship and serve the only God that Jesus told us to worship and serve. Jesus said that One is the “only true God”. Hmmmmmmmmmm………….see how I follow the words of the one you want to make your God, and you don't?mike
So you say but there are plenty of scriptures that show Jesus being worshipped with the same word that Jesus said was to be used on the Father.Who is following the scriptural examples Mike?
WJ
There is not one scripture in the Bible that refers to Jesus being worshipped by anyone.I'll be getting that book by my non-trinitarian scholar Jason BeDuhn. He compares the actual Greek against nine different translations, including the NWT. I'm looking at some excerpts from it right now. Here's one that fits our discussion:
“Here [Matt 28:16,17] all translations except the NWT have recourse to 'worship' – a rendering which makes no sense in this context….. This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NWT.”
He also says, “In our exploration of this issue [of proskuneo], we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NWT………”
I repeat: This guy is NOT a JW, but IS an expert in the Greek language. Expect to hear much more from good ole Jason once I receive the book.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:32)
Yes unless you can show us how John 1:1c is qualitatively less than John 1:1b.
Why is it on ME to show YOU the Word is “less”?
Why don't YOU show ME how the god who was with THE God is exactly equal TO that God?Anyway, 1:18 does a very good job of it…….unless of course you think God Almighty was “begotten”. Do you?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:35) Because the Bible says Jesus is God…….. ……….and that is why it is a contradiction to your theology.
Show me the scripture that says Jesus is God Almighty. And to what “contradiction” in my theology do you refer?Also, answer my question: Why would you insist on using the word “true” and thereby making Jesus' own words null and void?
mike
Hey Keith,
I was trying to see if I could buy Jason BeDuhn's book in electronic form, and came upon this review of the book:
I am Greek, I have been raised in Greece, I have studied Classical Greek for two years in high school (Classical Greek is much more complicated than koine, or Common Greek) and I have been studying the original Greek text of the Bible for about 10 years. Having this background, I responsibly say that this book presents quite right, well documented and reliable linguistic information. Yes, its writer must be considered adequate as regards his knowledge of the Biblical Greek. So, this book sheds plenty of light about subjects of whitch the common English reader has no idea. For example: English readers often claim that NW is false in Jonh 1:1. Trinitarians in Greece have never used this specific verse to claim that the New World Translation (NW) is wrong, since all the Orthodox versions read actually the same as the greek version of the NW. And this happens because the wording of this verse is very clear for the Greek reader, and there is no place for debate. I am sorry to say this, but for a Greek it is ridiculous to debate on John 1:1.
That underlined part is a trip, no?
I wonder if that's true?mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:15) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,22:38) Keith and Mark,
Read this and see:Quote The terms “unbegotten” and “begotten” are interchangeable with the terms Father and Son. This follows from the relation of a substantive to its adjective. In whatever sense a substantive is employed, in the same sense must the adjective formed from it be employed. Consequently, if the first person of the Trinity may be called Father in a sense that implies deity, he may be called Unbegotten in the same sense. And if the second person may be called Son in a sense implying deity, he may be called Begotten in the same sense. The Ancient church often employed the adjective, and spoke of God the Unbegotten and God the Begotten (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 25, 53; ii. 12, 13. Clem. Alex. Stromata v. xii.). This phraseology sounds strange to the Modern church, yet the latter really says the same thing when it speaks of God the Father, and God the Son.—W.G.T.S.] from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.vii.vii.html
KathiI find it amazing that like Mike you also use “Trinitarian” quotes to prove the opposite of their conclusions.
The next page of your source says (emphasis mine)…
Chapter 8.—Whatever is Spoken of God According to Substance, is Spoken of Each Person Severally, and Together of the Trinity Itself. One Essence in God, and Three, in Greek, Hypostases, in Latin, Persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, “that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular“. For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say “THAT THE VERY SUPREME TRINITY ITSELF IS THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet “NOT THREE GREATS, BUT ONE GREAT”. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Thou art great: Thou art God alone.”573573 Ps. lxxxvi. 10 And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, “None is good, save one, that is, God.” For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood as man only by him who said, “Good Master,” as addressing a man, does not therefore say, There is none good, save the Father alone; but, “None is good, save one, that is, God.”574574 Luke xviii. 18, 19 For the Father by Himself is declared by the name of Father; “BUT BY THE NAME OF GOD, BOTH HIMSELF AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE THE TRINITY IS ONE GOD. Source
So you see they do not agree with your understanding of the words “unbegotten” and “begotten” Gods. You want to go down that road we can but I assure you that the final conclusion of the church was Jesus is “One God” with the Father and the Holy Spirit and that Jesus had no beginning. The Athanasian Creed does the final blow to the Arians and the RCC has not tossed out the Nicene Creed which only means that their understanding of the two agrees whereas yours doesn't.
WJ
Keith,
Do you always agree with everything the people you quote believe?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,14:40) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,12:22) Mike,
you said:Quote He is instead, like the others, a vice regent and servant OF his God. Scripture bears this out. This is what I am talking about when I speak of those who push doctrines placing the only begotten God in the same pot as the others. The only begotten God is called an angel, He is called an apostle and many other things. Does that mean that He is one of the many apostles, or one of the many angels? He is also called the good Shepherd and pastors are called to 'shepherd' the flock and we know that the begotten God, the good shepherd is not one of the many pastors…right?
Kathi
I see your point Kathi,T8, Irene, Pierre and I find ourselves in an awkward position on HN. One one battle front, we go to war against those who claim Jesus was never anything more than a human being exactly like us. And we have to put up with Gene saying we are Gnostics, antichrists and Trinitarians, and asking why we don't just take the next step and worship Jesus as God.
On the other battle front, we go to war against people who want to claim Jesus is equal to the God who begot him, or even that he is that God himself. And we have to put up with Jack saying we would have been part of the group who tortured and killed Jesus because we want to make him less than what he is.
Thankfully, the position we are in is the scripturally correct one, and I will happily defend our understanding using the very scriptures we gained that understanding from.
So here is the SCRIPTURAL TRUTH of the matter, as supported by ALL of the scriptures:
Jesus IS an angel of God. He is ONE of the many messiahs of God, and a SERVANT of his God. He emptied himself of the spirit nature he had, was made as a human being, taught about the coming kingdom of HIS GOD, and was tortured and murdered. He did all this at the COMMAND of his God, who sent him to do it in the first place. He worships his God, obeys his God, and puts his God's will first in his mind, over his own concerns. In fact, he directed all worship TO his God, and gave all the credit for the fine works he did, also to his God. Jesus is very much LIKE his Father and God, as many sons are very much LIKE their own fathers. Jesus did not sacrifice anything that wasn't freely given to him in the first place…….his life. It was his God who loved us so much that He chose to sacrifice something that was truly His, His much beloved, only begotten Son.
On the other side of the coin, Jesus is much MORE than any other angel of God, for he is the only begotten Son of God Himself, and all the other angels were created through him. He is the second most powerful being in existence, headed up only by his own God. We owe him our thanks, honor, and praise for the sacrifice he made in our behalf. We do NOT, however, owe him the slap in the face of disregarding his very own teaching on worship, by trying to worship him as if he IS God Almighty. He is God's Son, Priest, Servant, Messiah, Sacrificial Lamb and the Mediator BETWEEN mankind and God Himself. He is NOT God Himself, and should not be made to be equal to, or a part of, God Himself.
Every single thing I just posted is absolutely 100% scriptural. There is no denying any of it, and the sooner everyone comes to actually BELIEVE what the words of scripture plainly teach us, the sooner there will be more t8s and Irenes and Pierres and Mikes.
mike
Jesus is equal to the one that begot Him, that is how it goes, like begets like…Almighty begets Almighty, both acting as one mind, not going two different directions.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:19) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,00:00) I believe He existed within the Father before He was begotten from the Father.
Was he alive as the Son, the Word with the Father from eternity?WJ
Keith,
I believe that His essence was eternally alive but He was not eternally begotten but He was begotten during eternity.A rough analogy…my son was alive 9 months before he was begotten on his birthday. My son was a person before he was begotten. My son was within me before he was begotten. My son was just as human as me before he was begotten. I was a mother while my son was within me, before he was begotten.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,19:22) Jesus is equal to the one that begot Him, that is how it goes, like begets like…Almighty begets Almighty
Hi Kathi,You are reaching. Male doesn't necessarily beget male. King doesn't necessarily beget King. Smart man doesn't necessarily beget smart man. And strong man doesn't necessarily beget strong man.
We can be sure that a human will beget a human, but as far as how strong or good looking or smart they will be, who can tell before it happens? Same with titles such as King. David had many sons, not all of them became King of Israel.
Zedekiah was the King of Israel. He had sons who never became kings. Instead they were killed before his very eyes. So King doesn't necessarily beget King.
So the best you could say is that it is likely that a spirit being would beget a spirit being. Beyond that, you're just guessing at things.
Besides, Almighty signifies THE Mightiest of all the Mighty ones. There can only be ONE Almighty, for only ONE can be the Mightiest of all. If Jehovah is God Almighty, then Jesus can not be that also. You seem to understand the term “God Most High”. Well, “Almighty” is the same. If Jehovah is the “Most High God”, then Jesus cannot be. And therefore, “God Most High” does NOT beget “God Most High”, but a “lower” god.
mike
Mike,
God is perfect and begets another who is perfect, so whatever perfect is in relation to God, then the Son is also. Neither one is more perfect than the other. You can't compare the strength of a human father and human son because God is perfect and not growing or evolving stronger.Also for All:
From Professor Jason David BeDuhn, Greek scholar:
“Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates ‘a god’. Translators for the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV, and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word, and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. Ironically, some of these same scholars a quick to charge the NW translation with ‘doctrinal bias’ for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.
Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth – in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John. John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun.”
He says about the other eight translations he compared:
“To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their ‘truth’ enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations of accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith.”
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
