Jehovah&#39;s Witness Church

Participant

Hi david,
There are many other groups who have divided loyalties and serve other governments they regard as greater than their elected one such as Catholicism and the Eastern religious groups.

September 28, 2006 at 2:54 am#29411

Participant

Quote

Hi david,
There are many other groups who have divided loyalties and serve other governments they regard as greater than their elected one such as Catholicism and the Eastern religious groups.

That's just it Nick. We do not have “divided loyalties.” We are loyal to God's kingdom. We are completely undivided, in every way, including by government–because we look to God's kingdom as the only hope, and not man's governments.
Sure, we benefit from them, live under them, follow their laws unless they conflict with Gods (which is the case with the government saying: “Don't talk to people about God”), but we do are not divided by nations.

So when a government tries to take away certain freedoms–freedom to congregate together for worship, freedom to speak to others about th e Bible, then, we must do everything we can to “defend and legally establish the good news.” (Phil 1:7)

When you say the Catholics serve other governments than their own, do you mean the Vatican? ARe you comparing that to JW's loyalty to God's kingdom? Really?
You know Nick, I've been told that there is only one religion in the Vatican other than Catholics. They feel they need to preach to everyone. Any ideas who that may be?

September 28, 2006 at 3:06 am#29414

Participant

Hi david,
Your loyalty to the JW's, if turned around in the right direction, would make you an excellent servant of the Lord.

There were Zealots among the disciples.

September 28, 2006 at 3:17 pm#29443

Casey S Smith 29

Participant

Hmmmm, well David let's begin.

I don't think celebrating the birth of Christ is going to keep us out of the kingdom. No, I am VERY familiar with your teachings. I have read pages and pages of literture and hours of discussions. You are right in regard to “hell” and possibly the Son of God and not deity but Christmas is blown out of proportion. I know FULL well every traition that Christmas has derived from. Believe it or not, some believers actually read Scripture Christmas morning (such as myself) and teach my kids the importance of Jesus's birth. Your post just reitterated everything I already knew. Your comment that celebrating Satanic day was just out of proportion and extreme. I find it very odd that that is the main topic you chose to write extensivly about though as oppose to the more important discussions.

The 144,000 not at all having ANYTHING to due with the “elect” of God. WE are the priests and kings, not a mere select few.

The emphasis on living on earth not entirely accurate likewise. Jesus said I go to prepare a place for you that where I am there you may be also. Where was Jesus? It is obvious I think.

1914? Enough said.

Jesus being worshipped? I think T8 hit it on the head. reading your NWT says that glory and honor be unto Jehovah AND unto the Lamb.

Jesus said HE is the First and the Last but in Isaiah YHWH said HE was.

What of Titus 2:13…our God and Saviour.

The Gk “kia” linking the tow. Accordging to Grann Sharp's Greek Grammatical Rule, if the predicate before the noun is followed by kia and another noun without a predicate, then the second noun is likewise the firsrt. Having said that…OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR.

Now, I am not propossing that Jesus is God. I am inquiring of anyone's explanation. I am studying the Monarch position, Sabellus position also known as Oneness or modelism, The Trinity and Arius's view of the Son of God (there was a time when the son was not as opposed to Athanasius' there has never been a time when the Son was not) which is the JW witness position.

The irony an confusion I have learned over the past nine years is that the same verses are used to proport each position. All quote Isaiah, all use Colossions, all use John…seems comical aat best and mind boggling to the point of insanity at worst.

September 28, 2006 at 7:46 pm#29449

Participant

Hi Casey,
The trinity and Oneness beliefs have one thing in common.
They deny Jesus is really the Son of God.
Both say that he is part of God.

Our salvation is through the Son and Satan must feel very smug that he has blinded men to that Gate and Gatekeeper to salvation.

Jn 10
“1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. “

1Jn 4
“14And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.”

1Jn 5
“9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

September 28, 2006 at 10:52 pm#29488

Participant

Quote

Your comment that celebrating Satanic day was just out of proportion and extreme.

I wasn't saying that Christmas was Satanic. I'm saying we can't just celebrate anything and put a bow on it and all is fine.

Quote

I find it very odd that that is the main topic you chose to write extensivly about though as oppose to the more important discussions.

If I remember, without checking, I thought you had devoted a paragraph to that subject, but only one sentence to everything else. So, I focused on that.

Quote

The 144,000 not at all having ANYTHING to due with the “elect” of God. WE are the priests and kings, not a mere select few.

And who do “we” rule over as kings? Who do we serve as “priests”? Who do we judge as Judges?

Quote

The emphasis on living on earth not entirely accurate likewise. Jesus said I go to prepare a place for you that where I am there you may be also. Where was Jesus? It is obvious I think.

I'll let Nick and the others on this forum who seem to all think that no one ever goes to heaven speak with you on this. But Jesus words at Mat 5:5 are clear. So are many other scriptures. There is a “new heaven AND a new earth,” that are to come.

Quote

Jesus being worshipped? I think T8 hit it on the head. reading your NWT says that glory and honor be unto Jehovah AND unto the Lamb.

Go to the worship thread. You're simply wrong on this point. Simply wrong.

Quote

reading your NWT says that glory and honor be unto Jehovah AND unto the Lamb.

I don't remember saying honor and glory are not due Jesus. It's worship (Gk proskyneo) that is the word in question.

Quote

1914? Enough said.

World changed that year. World went to war. That was just the beginning. Nations have always gone to war. But the world? Pestilence, earthquakes, same thing. Historians will tell you that the world changed in that year. Nothing's been said of it on here, but if you're saying that that was “just another year,” ask your grandpa.

Quote

Jesus said HE is the First and the Last but in Isaiah YHWH said HE was.

Did he? If you're referring to Revelation, which was visions given by God to Jesus and was presented to John through an angel that Jesus gave the message to, you'll find there's more than one person speaking. Some people get confused who's talking. Check again. Re-read it.

Quote

What of Titus 2:13…our God and Saviour.

What about it?

RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)

Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.

Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.

Quote

I know. I was greatly confused to find this out when a pastor who I had met while going from door to door kept trying to use the same scriptures I was to prove that God is a trinity, while I was using those exact same scriptures which I clearly proved the opposite. It was bizarre because for a moment, I understood what he was saying, and got lost in his thoughts. Then, I snapped back into reality and realized that he was just wrong. He actually had brought me to this library room and explained to me that I was wrong becaus he had read all those books and was a pastor. So…. I wasn't going to get anywhere with him, because in his mind he was just so much smarter then little old me.

September 29, 2006 at 8:08 pm#29653

Casey S Smith 29

Participant

Well David you responded to Titus 2:13 as “what of it” and gave Bible “translations” however if you read:

What of Titus 2:13…our God and Saviour.

You would see that I went to the Greek and followed grammatical rules of translation. I think it unfair to say that John 8:58 (I think it is at the top of my head) as translating “before Abraham was I AM” from ego emi is considered “ungrammatical” but then saying that the NWT amongst others as referring to GOD and (then) Jesus Christ is correct…a little bias sir.

Yes, Christmas may have been a bit much on my part, my apologizes and stand corrected.

1914? Ok, the WORLD could only have been involved in this war being that the WORLD had the capability and means (not merely warhead and amunition but messengers and report from telegraphs and papers…etc,etc). The War against Jerusalem in AD 70 was so intense and graphic the parents ate their very children during the long seige of the Romans. To say things are far worse since 1914 is a bit reaching sir. Not to mention as Soloman said there is nothing new under the sun and also said that what has done will be forgotten (my paraphrase) from future generations so whose to say this was the worst war. Let's move to Hitler's reign. The Holocaust was far worst that any “world” war. Millions of Jews literally baked and butchered. Then the atom bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasoki. Again to reitterate; 1914. Now let's move on to some other things.

1880 ?As the beginning of that change was marked by the coming of Christ from heaven, so the 2300 years above mentioned indicated that Christ was due to leave the most holy place – ?heaven itself? – in 1844.? (Watchtower 7/1880 p. 3, Reprints p. 115)

1881 January: ?Matt. xxv and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins ?who are alive and remain? must all come in, to a knowledge of the Bridegroom?s presences, by the fall of 1881, when the door – opportunity to become a member of the bride – will close.? (January 1881 Watchtower, p. 4) February: ?And now we come nearer to the time when our change seems due (we know not the day or hour, but expect it during 1881, possibly near the autumn when the parallels show the favor to Zion complete and due to end, the door the marriage shut and high calling to be the bride of Christ, to cease) and light on the subject is becoming clearer?? (Watchtower, February, 18814, p. 5) Note: the closer they came to October 1881 the less definite the Watchtower became regarding the ?change.? July/August: ?We look to October of this year, as the limit of favor – the end of ?the acceptable year (time or age) of the Lord? – the closing of the ?straight gate? to the ?narrow way? of the opportunity to become a member of the bride of Christ and partaker of his Divine Nature.? (July/August Watchtower, 1881, p. 6)

1889 ?In this volume we offer a chain of testimony on the subject of God?s appointed times and seasons, each link of which we consider Scripturally strong?it is beyond the breadth and depth of human thought, and therefore cannot be of human origin. (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1889, p. 15)

1892 ?The date of the close of that ?battle? is definitely marked in the Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October 1874.? (Watchtower Reprints, January 15, 1892, p. 1355)

1897 ?Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874 A.D., according to the testimony of the prophets, to those who have ears to hear it.? (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, 1897, pl. 621)

1914 ?The war will proceed and will eventuate in no glorious victory for any nation, but in the horrible mutilation and impoverishment of all. Next will follow the Armageddon of anarchy.? (The New York Times, October 5, 1914, p. 8)

1916 ?In the meantime, eyes of understanding should discern clearly the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty now in progress; and our faith, guiding our eyes of understanding through the Word,, should enable us to see the glorious outcome – Messiah?s Kingdom.? (Watchtower Reprints, September 1, 1916, p. 5951)

1917 ?The data presented in the comments on Revelation 2:1 prove that the conquest of Judea was not completed until the day of Passover, A.D. 73, and in the light of the foregoing Scriptures, prove that the Sprint of 1918 will bring upon Christendom a spasm of anguish greater even than that experienced in the Fall of 1914.? (The Finished Mystery, p. 62(1918 ed.) (some later editions have changed the dates for obvious reasons) ?Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of ?Christianity?? (p. 485)

1920 ?Even the republics will disappear in 1920?The three days in which Pharaoh?s host pursued the Israelites into the wilderness represent the three years from 1917 to 1920 at which time all of Pharaoh?s messengers will be swallowed up by the sea of anarchy. The wheels will come off their chariots – organization.? (The Finished Mystery, 1918 ed., p, 258)

1920 ?As we have heretofore stated, the great jubilee cycle is due to begin in 1925. At the time the earthly phase of the kingdom shall be recognized?Therefore we may confidently expect that the 1925 will mark the return of Abraham?? (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 89)

1922 ?The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel. Viewing the present situation in Europe, one wonders how it will be possible to hold back the explosion much longer; and that even before 1925 the great crisis will be reached and probably passed.? (Watchtower September 1, 1922, p. 262)

1925 January: ?The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during the year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his own people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire during this year that they would fail to joyfully do what the Lord would have them do.? (Watchtower, January 1, 1925, p. 3)

September: ?It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated the thought that 1925 should see an end of the work, and that therefore it would be needless for them to do more.? (Watchtower, September 1, 1925)

1940 ?The year 1940 is certain to be the most important year yet, because Armageddon is very near. It behooves all who love righteousness to put forth every effort to advertise THE THEOCRACY while the privileges are still open.? (Informant, May 1940, p. 1) September: ?The Kingdom is here, the King is enthroned. Armageddon is just ahead. The glorious reign of Christ that shall bring blessings to the world will immediately follow. Therefore the great climax has been reached. Tribulation has fallen upon those who stand by the Lord.? (The Messenger, September 1940, p. 6)

1941 ?Meantime the German people are awakening to their horrible predicament. They no longer laugh as decent men and women were made to laugh, but their faces are white, pinched and filled with forebodings of what the near future will bring and is already hastening to bring to them – Armageddon, the battle of the great day of God Almighty.? (Consolation, October 29, 1941, p. 11)

1968 ?Just think, brothers, there are only about 90 months left before the 6000 years of man?s existence on earth is completed?The majority of
people living today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out.? (Kingdom Ministry, 3/68, p. 4)

1974 ?Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in the old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world?s end.? (Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, p. 3)

As the preceding conclusively proves, the Watchtower should have been speaking of itself when it said: ?True, there have been those in times past who predicted an ?end to the world,? even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened?Why? What was missing??Missing from such people were God?s truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them.? (Awake! October 8, 1968, p. 23)

ALL FALSE PROPHECIES OF THE WATCHTOWER.

What can one say to that such as yourself. Not trying to bash or punch you, but I think one should study their roots. If you study yours, you would see some pretty serious errors un unaccounted for statements and doctrine. If you confront a witness with these charges, they will leave and be upset and declare the documents are in error. Again, hypocritical.

September 29, 2006 at 8:27 pm#29655

Casey S Smith 29

Participant

Nick:

Yes agree with you sire in regard to the Trinity. The word is not found in Scripture but neither is many words and theological terms to describe and phrase a truth in passages.

I think I am getting to a head of things now. When one settles one is at peace and rest. One cannot rest in the Oneness position nor the position taken on this site – subordinationism. Regardless of what David says, Jesus IS worshipped throughout Scripture and the Angel of the Lord who was declared Yahweh (Jesus's preexistence) and worshipped did not declare to not worship Him unlike that (a)ngel of Revelation.

Jesus is the image of the INVISIBLE God. JW's contradict themselves when they say that in Revelation ONE is sitting on the throne (I am not arguing that, for I agree) and yet the Lamb who is seen as seperate come and takes the scroll being two. Now, John SEES this ONE. How can John see this ONE? Because Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He is not the Father yes, but He is God. The fulness of deity dwealt within Him. People do not seem to get that something invisible is invisible and CANNOT BE SEEN. No one has ever seen God as John declared? Well, some actually think that is untrue declaring that when Stephen SAW Jesus at the RIGHT hand of God they actually think that John COULD SEE SOMEONE sitting on a throne. It would be comical if it wasn't so serious, Jesus was in the Glory of that Father. Being and anthormoporphism declaring that the “right” hand is actually a hand is silly. NO ONE CAN SEE GOD!!! Or should I say, No one has seen God, the only Son who is in the side of the Father has declared Him.
To say that Jesus is a spirit being is absurd. What spirit being can be in the presence of the Father and live. Even the Seraphim have to have one set of their eyes covered with wings as they circle the throne!
There is NO NAME given among men by which we can be saved except JESUS (Jehovah Saves)

David, how come when YHWH (transliterated as Jehovah from Latin in the 1500's) states that John is going to prepare the way of YHWH it isn't acknowledged? What of the Scriptures stating I will send my messenger before ME? (YHWH in this context)? What of “they will look on me whom they pierced?
Also, JW's seem to not understand the Trinity as it is really taught and not as it is not understood by trinitarians without knowledge. The Trinity teaches that the Son is God. The kenosis of Philippians 2 is the emptying of himself to humble himself as we should. Having said that the Trinity says that he is man. So he can of his humanness be seen as not knowing things. But what of the Scriptures declaring what people are thinking or what they are saying or that he disppeared or that he walked on water? There are a plethora of Scriptures in which Jesus has the atrributes of God such has omniscience. What spirit being has ever had that?

There are passages of the:
Father
Son
Holy Spirit
that each are declared to have attributes of God. Yet, Oneness and JW's avoid this.

September 30, 2006 at 6:04 am#29696

Participant

Hi Casey,
You say
“Regardless of what David says, Jesus IS worshipped throughout Scripture and the Angel of the Lord who was declared Yahweh (Jesus's preexistence) and worshipped did not declare to not worship Him unlike that (a)ngel of Revelation”
But you cannot prove such things as this can you?

Jesus is a vessel for the fullness of deity of God.

September 30, 2006 at 6:35 am#29698

Participant

Quote

Jesus is a vessel for the fullness of deity of God.

SHOULD WE “WORSHIP” JESUS?

THE HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS [proskynéo (Greek) and hishtachawah (Hebrew)] THAT ARE OFTEN TRANSLATED “WORSHIP,” HAVE A VARIETY OF MEANINGS.. LET’S LOOK AT THEM.

At HEBREWS 1:6, the angels are instructed to “worship” Jesus, according to the rendering of RS, TEV, KJ, JB, and NAB, and others.
New World Translation (NW) says: “do obeisance to.”
Young's Literal Translation (YLT) says: “let them bow before him.”

(No matter what English term is used, the original Greek remains the same and the understanding of what it is that the angels render to Christ must accord with the rest of the Scriptures.)

At MATTHEW 14:33, Jesus’ disciples are said to have “worshiped” him, according to RS, TEV, KJ.
Other translations say that they “showed him reverence” (NAB), “bowed down before him” (JB), “fell at his feet” (NE), “did obeisance to him” (NW).

The Greek word rendered “worship” is proskynéo, which 'A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature' says was also “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground.” (Chicago, 1979, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker; second English edition; p. 716)
The Greek word proskynéo corresponds closely to the Hebrew term hishtachawah́ in expressing the thought of obeisance and, at times, worship.

For example, this is the term used:
at Matthew 14:33 to express what the disciples did toward Jesus;
at Hebrews 1:6 to indicate what the angels are to do toward Jesus;
at Genesis 22:5 in the Greek Septuagint to describe what Abraham did toward Jehovah;
at Genesis 23:7 to describe what Abraham did, in harmony with the custom of the time, toward people with whom he was doing business;
at 1 Kings 1:23 in the Septuagint to describe the prophet Nathan’s action on approaching King David.
at Matthew 18:26 in connection with a slave’s doing obeisance to a king.

NOTICE THOSE LAST FEW EXAMPLES AND CONSIDER WHAT THIS MEANS.

Let’s look at one more example. It’s an example of what happens when we insert the word “worship” where it clearly doesn’t belong–we get the wrong meaning.

MARK 15:19 (New King James Version)
“Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.”

Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar. Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him. The verse before (Mark 15:18) and Matthew 27:29 make clear that they “made fun” of him. It was in a mocking way that they did “obeisance to him,” bowing to him. They were not worshiping him and the context certainly doesn’t allow proskynéo to be translated as “worship” here.

CLEARLY, IT SHOULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRANSLATED AS “WORSHIP.”

NOW CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
At MATTHEW 4:10 (RS), Jesus said: “You shall worship [from proskynéo] the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.”
(At Deuteronomy 6:13, which Jesus is evidently here quoting, appears the personal name of God, the Tetragrammaton.) In harmony with that, we must understand that it is proskynéo with a particular attitude of heart and mind that should be directed only toward God.

OTHER GREEK WORDS associated with worship are drawn from eusebéo, threskeúo, and sébomai. The word eusebéo means “give godly devotion to” or “venerate, revere.” At Acts 17:23 this term is used with reference to the godly devotion or veneration that the men of Athens were giving to an “Unknown God.” From threskeúo comes the noun threskeía, understood to designate a “form of worship,” whether true or false. (Ac 26:5; Col 2:18) The true worship practiced by Christians was marked by genuine concern for the poor and complete separateness from the ungodly world. (Jas 1:26, 27) The word sébomai (Mt 15:9; Mr 7:7; Ac 18:7; 19:27) and the related term sebázomai (Ro 1:25) mean “revere; venerate; worship.” Objects of worship or of devotion are designated by the noun sébasma. (Ac 17:23; 2Th 2:4) Two other terms are from the same verb stem, with the prefix Theoś, God. These are theosebeś, meaning “God-revering” (Joh 9:31), and theosébeia, denoting “reverence of God.” (1Ti 2:10)

THE HEBREW
One of the Hebrew words conveying the idea of worship (`avadh́) basically means “serve.” (Ge 14:4; 15:13; 29:15) Serving or worshiping Jehovah required obedience to all of his commands, doing his will as a person exclusively devoted to him. (Ex 19:5; De 30:15-20; Jos 24:14, 15) Therefore, for an individual to engage in any ritual or act of devotion toward any other gods signified his abandoning true worship.—De 11:13-17; Jg 3:6, 7.

Hishtachawah́ means, basically, “bow down.” (Ge 18:2)
Such bowing might be done as an act of respect or deference toward another human, as to a king (1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 24:20; Ps 45:11),
the high priest (1Sa 2:36),
a prophet (2Ki 2:15),
or other person of authority (Ge 37:9, 10; 42:6; Ru 2:8-10),
to an elder relative (Ge 33:1-6; 48:11, 12; Ex 18:7; 1Ki 2:19),
or even to strangers as an expression of courteous regard (Ge 19:1, 2).
Abraham bowed down to the Canaanite sons of Heth from whom he sought to buy a burial place. (Ge 23:7)
Isaac’s blessing on Jacob called for national groups and Jacob’s own “brothers” to bow down to him. (Ge 27:29; compare 49:8.)
When men started to bow down before David’s son Absalom, he grabbed them and kissed them, evidently to further his political ambitions by making a show of putting himself on a level with them. (2Sa 15:5, 6)
Mordecai refused to prostrate himself before Haman, not because he viewed the practice as wrong in itself, but doubtless because this high Persian official was an accursed Amalekite by descent.—Es 3:1-6.

FROM THE ABOVE EXAMPLES IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS HEBREW TERM OF ITSELF DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A RELIGIOUS SENSE OR SIGNIFY WORSHIP.

Nevertheless, in a large number of cases it is used in connection with worship, either of the true God (Ex 24:1; Ps 95:6; Isa 27:13; 66:23) or of false gods. (De 4:19; 8:19; 11:16)

Bowing down to humans as an act of respect was admissible, but bowing to anyone other than Jehovah as a deity was prohibited by God. (Ex 23:24; 34:14) Similarly, the worshipful bowing down to religious images or to any created thing was positively condemned. (Ex 20:4, 5; Le 26:1; De 4:15-19; Isa 2:8, 9, 20, 21) Thus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, when certain of Jehovah’s servants prostrated themselves before angels, they only did so to show they recognized that these were God’s representatives, not to render obeisance to them as deities.—Jos 5:13-15;
Ge 18:1-3.

The Greek proskynéo corresponds closely to the Hebrew hishtachawah́ as to conveying the thought of both obeisance to creatures and worship to God or a deity. The manner of expressing the obeisance is perhaps not so prominent in proskynéo as in hishtachawah́, where the Hebrew term graphically conveys the thought of prostration or bowing down. Scholars derive the Greek term from the verb kynéo, “kiss.” The usage of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures (as also in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) shows that persons to whose actions the term is applied prostrated themselves or bowed down.—Mt 2:11; 18:26; 28:9.

As with the Hebrew term, the context must be considered to determine whether proskynéo refers to obeisance solely in the form of deep respect or obeisance in the form of religious worship.
Where reference is directly to God (Joh 4:20-24; 1Co 14:25; Re 4:10) or to false gods and their idols (Ac 7:43; Re 9:20), it is evident that the obeisance goes beyond that acceptably or customarily rendered to men and enters the field of worship. So, too, where the object of the obeisance is left unstated, its being directed to God is understood. (Joh 12:20; Ac 8:27; 24:11; Heb 11:21; Re 11:1)
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ACTION OF THOSE OF “THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN” WHO ARE MADE TO “COME AND DO OBEISANCE” BEFORE THE FEET OF CHRISTIANS IS CLEARLY NOT WORSHIP. (Re 3:9.) Yet, some Bible’s translate it as “worship.” Indiscriminately translating these words as “worship” is wrong.

HERE IS THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION, THE POINT OF THIS POST:
While some translators use the word “worship” in the majority of cases where proskynéo describes persons’ actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one’s reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God’s representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as “God’s Son,” the foretold “Son of man,” the Messiah with divine authority. On many occasions their obeisance expressed a gratitude for divine revelation or evidence of favor like that expressed in earlier times.—Mt 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Lu 24:50-52; Joh 9:35, 38.

While earlier prophets and also angels had accepted obeisance, Peter stopped Cornelius from rendering such to him, and the angel or angels of John’s vision twice stopped John from doing so, referring to himself as “a fellow slave” and concluding with the exhortation to “worship God [toi Theoí proskýneson].” (Ac 10:25, 26; Re 19:10; 22:8, 9) Evidently Christ’s coming had brought in new relationships affecting standards of conduct toward others of God’s servants. He taught his disciples that “one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers . . . your Leader is one, the Christ” (Mt 23:8-12), for it was in him that the prophetic figures and types found their fulfillment, even as the angel told John that “the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying.” (Re 19:10) Jesus was David’s Lord, the greater than Solomon, the prophet greater than Moses. (Lu 20:41-43; Mt 12:42; Ac 3:19-24) The obeisance rendered those men prefigured that due Christ. Peter therefore rightly refused to let Cornelius make too much of him.

On the other hand, Christ Jesus has been exalted by his Father to a position second only to God.
PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11
“. . . so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Compare Da 7:13, 14, 27.)

Jesus himself emphatically stated to Satan that “it is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of proskynéo], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Mt 4:8-10; Lu 4:7, 8) Similarly, the angel(s) told John to “worship God” (Re 19:10; 22:9), and this injunction came after Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation, showing that matters had not changed in this regard. True, Psalm 97, which the apostle evidently quotes at Hebrews 1:6, refers to Jehovah God as the object of the ‘bowing down,’ and still this text was applied to Christ Jesus. (Ps 97:1, 7) However, the apostle previously had shown that the resurrected Christ is “the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (Heb 1:1-3) Hence, if what we understand as “worship” is apparently directed to the Son by angels, it is in reality being directed through him to Jehovah God, the Sovereign Ruler, “the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.” (Re 14:7; 4:10, 11; 7:11, 12; 11:16, 17; compare 1Ch 29:20; Re 5:13, 14; 21:22.) On the other hand, the renderings “bow before” and ‘pay homage’ (instead of “worship”) are in no way out of harmony with the original language, either the Hebrew of Psalm 97:7 or the Greek of Hebrews 1:6, for such translations convey the basic sense of both hishtachawah́ and proskynéo.

So you can't really say Jesus is to be worshipped. You CAN say that your trinitarian biased Bible says that he is worshipped. But, you should consider the Bible as a whole and understand what those words mean before attempting to make such a claim.

david

September 30, 2006 at 6:57 am#29699

Participant

Casey, since you've a couple times said I'm wrong on Jesus being worshipped, but didn't explain why you felt such, I'd love to hear it from you.
And please don't just say: “My Bible says he was “worshipped.” (See above.)

Something you also state that bothers me, is you keep saying:
“1914, enough.”

Quote

Your first statement speaking of WWI, suggests that it is only because of our recent technology and communications that we SAW more war, etc, but it wasn't that bad, comparably. There's been other comparable wars. Or something to that effect.
I'm not saying there weren't horrible things that came later. The holocaust wasn't a horrible tragedy. I've been to the haulocaust museum in washington. JW's suffered greatly at Hitlers hands. There used to be a whole section there devoted to them. (Interestingly, they were the only group in the concentration camps that could have simply left…if they signed a piece of paper renouncing their faith.)
Anyway, you also try to use Solomon's words and say 'who is to say there won't be a much worse war?'
Well, if there was another “world war,” the world wouldn't survive it. The world has changed. Right now, one of the reasons we don't have another great war, is that everyone is armed to the tilt. If there was another world war, not much would be left.

*****

A crucial time was drawing close. In 1876 the Bible student Charles Taze Russell contributed the article “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” to the Bible Examiner, published in Brooklyn, New York, which said on page 27 of its October issue, “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” The Gentile Times is the period Jesus referred to as “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) Not all that was expected to happen in 1914 did happen, but it did mark the end of the Gentile Times and was a year of special significance. Many historians and commentators agree that 1914 was a turning point in human history. The following quotes show this.

How do secular authorities or historians view 1914?

“Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster. Many serious people have come to feel that nothing can be done to avert the plunge towards ruin.”—Bertrand Russell, The New York Times Magazine, September 27, 1953.

The London Evening Star commented that the conflict “tore the whole world’s political setup apart. Nothing could ever be the same again. If we all get the nuclear madness out of our systems and the human race survives, some historian in the next century may well conclude that the day the world went mad was August 4, 1914.”–London Evening Star, quoted in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, August 5, 1960, and The Seattle Times, August 4, 1960, p. 5.

“Half a century has gone by, yet the mark that the tragedy of the Great War [World War I, which started in 1914] left on the body and soul of the nations has not faded . . . The physical and moral magnitude of this ordeal was such that nothing left was the same as before. Society in its entirety: systems of government, national borders, laws, armed forces, interstate relations, but also ideologies, family life, fortunes, positions, personal relations—everything was changed from top to bottom. . . . Humanity finally lost its balance, never to recover it to this day.”—General Charles de Gaulle, speaking in 1968 (Le Monde, Nov. 12, 1968, p. 9).

“The last completely ‘normal’ year in history was 1913, the year before World War I began.”—Editorial in the Times-Herald, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1949.

“Looking back from the vantage point of the present we see clearly today that the outbreak of World War I ushered in a twentieth-century ‘Time of Troubles’—in the expressive term of the British historian Arnold Toynbee—from which our civilization has by no means yet emerged. Directly or indirectly all the convulsions of the last half century stem back to 1914.”—The Fall of the Dynasties: The Collapse of the Old Order (New York, 1963), Edmond Taylor, p. 16.

No previous war in history compared with it. It was so different that historians of that time called it The Great War.
Of it, an encyclopedia states: “World War I took the lives of twice as many men as all major wars from 1790 to 1913 put together.” It noted that total military casualties were over 37,000,000, and added: “The number of civilian deaths in areas of actual war totaled about 5,000,000. Starvation, disease, and exposure accounted for about 80 of every 100 of these civilian deaths. Spanish influenza, which some persons blamed on the war, caused tens of millions of other deaths.–The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 20, p. 377.
World War! Pestilences! Food shortages!

“Everything would get better and better. This was the world I was born in. . . . Suddenly, unexpectedly, one morning in 1914 the whole thing came to an end.”—British statesman Harold Macmillan, The New York Times, November 23, 1980.

“Increasingly, the 75-year period from 1914 to 1989, covering two world wars and the cold war, is being seen by historians as a single, discrete epoch, a time apart in which much of the world was fighting war, recovering from war or preparing for war.”—The New York Times, May 7, 1995.
“The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. Before then, men thought that utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since . . . More people have been killed in this century than in all of history.”—Dr. Walker Percy, American Medical News, November 21, 1977.

“It is indeed the year 1914 rather than that of Hiroshima which marks the turning point in our time, for by now we can see that . . . it was the first world war that ushered in the era of confused transition in the midst of which we are floundering.”—Dr. René Albrecht-Carrié, Barnard College, The Scientific Monthly, July 1951.

“In 1914 the world lost a coherence which it has not managed to recapture since. . . . This has been a time of extraordinary disorder and violence, both across national frontiers and within them.”—The Economist, London, August 4, 1979.

“World War I and its aftermath led to the greatest economic depression in history during the early 1930’s. The consequences of the war and the problems of adjustment to peace led to unrest in almost every nation.”–The World Book Encyclopedia (1966, Vol. 20) on page 379 under its heading “World War I”

Author Maurice Genevoix, who was a military officer during that war, said of it: “Everyone agrees in recognizing that in the whole history of mankind, few dates have had the importa
nce of August 2, 1914. First Europe and soon after almost all humanity found themselves plunged into a dreadful event. Conventions, agreements, moral laws, all the foundations shook; from one day to the next, everything was called into question. The event was to exceed both instinctive forebodings and reasonable anticipations. Enormous, chaotic, monstrous, it still drags us in its wake.”—Maurice Genevoix, member of the Académie Française, quoted in the book Promise of Greatness (1968).

“The modern era . . . began in 1914, and no one knows when or how it will end. . . . It could end in mass annihilation.”—The Seattle Times, January 1, 1959.

“In its scope, its violence, and above all, in its totality, it established a precedent. World War I ushered in the century of Total War, of—in the first full sense of the term—global war. . . .Never before 1914-1918 had a war absorbed so much of the total resources of so many combatants and covered so large a part of the earth. Never had so many nations been involved. Never had the slaughter been so comprehensive and indiscriminate.”–World War I, by H.W. Baldwin, pages 1,2

The World Book Encyclopedia noted that the number of soldiers killed and wounded was over 37,000,000, and added:
“The number of civilian deaths in areas of actual war totaled about 5,000,000. Starvation, disease, and exposure accounted for about 80 of every 100 of these civilian deaths. Spanish influenza, which some persons blamed on the war, caused tens of millions of other deaths.”—1966 edition, Vol. 20, p. 377.

More than 50 years after 1914, German statesman Konrad Adenauer wrote: “Security and quiet have disappeared from the lives of men since 1914.”—The West Parker, Cleveland, Ohio, January 20, 1966.

“Some historians believe that the 20th century will be seen as a time of unparalleled savagery,” notes The New York Times.

An article in The Washington Post concurs: “Our 20th-century wars have been ‘total wars’ against combatants and civilians alike,” it says. “The casualties, including the genocide of the Jews, are measured in the tens of millions. The barbarian wars of centuries past were alley fights in comparison.” Civil insurrections have added to the carnage. How many have died? “The ‘megadeaths’ since 1914, by an estimate of Zbigniew Brzezinski, have totaled 197 million, ‘the equivalent of more than one in ten of the total world population in 1900,’” says the Post. It adds that it is an “indisputable fact that terrorism and wanton killing are embedded deeply in the culture of this century” and that “no political or economic system has so far in this century pacified or satisfied the restless millions.”

As regards economic consequences, Ashby Bladen, a senior vice president of The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, writes: “Before 1914 the monetary and the financial systems were compatible. . . . If one takes August 1914 as marking the dividing line between them, the contrasts between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries are striking. In many aspects of human affairs there has been a complete reversal of trend. . . . One major reason was the severance of the linkage between the financial system and money with intrinsic value that began in 1914. . . . The breaking of the linkage was a momentous event. . . . 1914 marked a radical, and in the end catastrophic, transformation of that system.”

“The 19th century—defined as a set of beliefs, assumptions, attitudes and morals—did not end on Jan. 1, 1901,” wrote columnist Charley Reese. “It ended in 1914. That’s also when the 20th century, defined the same way, began.”
Reese explained: “Virtually all of the conflicts that we have been concerned with all of our lives stemmed from that [first world] war. . . . It destroyed 19th century optimism and created the 20th century versions of hedonism, cynicism, anxiety, angst and nihilism.”

“People of the World War II generation, my generation, will always think of their conflict as the great modern watershed of change. . . . We should be allowed our vanity, our personal rendezvous with history. But we should know that, in social terms, a far more decisive change came with World War I. It was then that political and social systems, centuries in the building, came apart—sometimes in a matter of weeks. And others were permanently transformed. It was in World War I that the age-old certainties were lost. . . . World War II continued, enlarged and affirmed this change. In social terms World War II was the last battle of World War I.”—The Age of Uncertainty (Boston, 1977), John K. Galbraith, p. 133.

****

Historians do seem to point to 1914 as being a year where everything changed.

And then, there’s this:
The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”–The World, a New York newspaper, August 30, 1914.

Total warfare, famine, and the pestilence too, were all foretold by Jesus. They have all occurred. Put together, these facts mark 1914 as the beginning of the “last days” and the year that God’s heavenly kingdom began its active rule.—See also Luke 21:10, 11.

david

September 30, 2006 at 7:09 am#29701

Participant

See you guys. I'll be gone for the weekend.

September 30, 2006 at 9:09 am#29704

Participant

Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Sep. 28 2006,16:17)

What of Titus 2:13…our God and Saviour.

Now, I am not propossing that Jesus is God. I am inquiring of anyone's explanation.

Here's mine:

7. Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

I assert that this is an explicit declaration of Yahshua’s deity. Here are my two pieces of substantive evidence:

1. The Greek in Titus 2:13.

Granville Sharp's rule 1 applies here. Basically, the rule states that in a Greek sentence construction when two nouns, which are not proper names, but which are describing a person, are connected by the copulative conjunction “kai” (English=and), and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same subject (person). In the instance of Titus 2:13 the words “God” and “Saviour” are both used in reference to Yahshua.

“If two nouns of the same case are connected by a “kai” [and] and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. [Sharp's rule VI] If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first” Vaughn and Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 83.

This is not to be confused with GSR # IV where the definite article is used is association with BOTH nouns, in this instance the two nouns are referring to distinct things or persons. So the Greek in this verse is quite straightforward and unmistakably states that Yahsua is God…

2. Contextual considerations.
It is Yahshua's appearing that He (Yahshua) told us to expect, the NT writers were expecting, and we should expect:

Yahshua declared He is coming again:

Matthew 16:27
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 24:30
30″And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

Mark 8:38
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Luke 21:27
And then they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud of power and great glory.

Revelation 3:11
11I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

Revelation 22:7
7″And behold, I am coming quickly Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”

Revelation 22:12
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

Revelation 22:20
He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly ” Amen Come, Lord Jesus.

The apostles, of course, were expecting and prophesied Yahshua’s return:

Matthew 24:3
3As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

1 Thessalonians 3:13
To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

1 Timothy 6:14
That you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ

2 Timothy 1:10
10but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

2 Timothy 4:1
1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:

2 Timothy 4:8
8in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing

Revelation 1:7
7BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

There is no doubt that the subject, described with the appellative “Great God” in Titus 2:13 could only be Yahshua. No where in NT scripture are we told to expect the Father's appearance, so even if the the Granville sharp rule is ignored, it still can not be legitimately argued that two subjects are in view in Titus 2:13.

Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

The “blessed hope” and the “glorious appearing” (also in Granville Sharp construction) of our Great God and Savior Christ Jesus – that is what we are to expect. That is Paul's explicit message in Titus 2:13.

The summary says; a critical look at the grammar in Titus 2:13 manifestly bears out that the two nouns “Great God” and “Savior” are use in reference to the same subject in the verse, Yahshua. This is substantiated by the numerous corroborative scriptures that testify that it is Yahshua's appearance that we are to expect, and the complete absence of biblical data that predicts/reveals the Father of Yahshua is returning.

Casey S Smith 29, I'm a little confused by you stating “I am not propossing that Jesus is God” and then defending an interpretation of a verse (the right one) that blatantly contradicts your statement….given that there is only ONE God, Yahshua cannot logically be “Great God” but not the God, right? That seems to be what you are implying…Can you clarify this for me?

Blessings

September 30, 2006 at 9:18 am#29705

Participant

Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Sep. 29 2006,21:27)

Nick:

Yes agree with you sire in regard to the Trinity. The word is not found in Scripture but neither is many words and theological terms to describe and phrase a truth in passages.

There are passages of the:
Father
Son
Holy Spirit
that each are declared to have attributes of God. Yet, Oneness and JW's avoid this.

Nice post! Many good points made…..

September 30, 2006 at 9:36 am#29706

Participant

Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Sep. 29 2006,21:27)

How can John see this ONE? Because Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He is not the Father yes, but He is God.

Quote

Now, I am not propossing that Jesus is God. I am inquiring of anyone's explanation.

Now I'm really confused….

He is God, He isn't God…..

Which is it Casey??

September 30, 2006 at 10:15 am#29708

Participant

Quote

He is not the Father yes, but He is God. The fulness of deity dwealt within Him.

Paul used very clear language in Col 2:9, he did not employ a figure of speech. There are no lexical ambiguities in this verse….

Colossians 2:9
“For in Him dwells (katoikei) all the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity (theotes) bodily (somatikos).”

“katoikeo” – meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling”. The verb is in the present tense, denoting durative action.

“pleroma” – indicating that which “is filled up.”

“somatikos” – meaning “corporeally” or “physically”

“theotes” – used as an abstract noun for ‘theos’. It's meaning is outlined below.

Joseph H. Thayer, the Unitarian scholar, defines theotes in his lexicon as follows:

“Theotes…(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9”

“the state of being God”….Paul's language could not have been stronger, nor more explicit, in affirming that Yahshua was 'walking deity'.

Thayer cites as one of his sources the work of Richard Trench on synonyms in the New Testament. Trench recorded:

… yet they must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in the process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; theotes being from Theos, and theiotes not from to theion, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to Theos, but from the adjective theios… But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His person for a season and with a splendor not his own; but He was, and is absolute and perfect God; And the Apostle uses theotes to express the essential and personal Godhead of the Son.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words records this:

”…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties.

A.T Robertson who is widely recognized as the worlds most authoritative Greek grammarian said in his book Word Pictures In The New Testament:

“There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from ‘Theos,’ deity) and not to be confused with ‘Theiotes’ in Romans 1:20 (from ‘Theios,’ the quality of God, divinity), here only in N.T. as ‘Theiote’ only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. ‘Theiotes’ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions.”

The Expositor’s Greek Testament, corroborates what Robertson wrote:

“The word (“Theotes”) is to be distinguished from “Theiotes” as Deity, the being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or Godlike. The passage thus asserts the real Deity of Christ.“

So evidently Col 2:9 does not designate that Jesus was filled with the Father Himself, as Paul would have used the noun ’theos’ to convey this (it's important to mention that the word 'theotes' is never used in reference to men – only Yahshua). Nor can you translate “theotes” to mean a simple quality or attribute as 'theios' is a better word choice to convey this sentiment. Theotes goes well beyond what theios expresses, and instead refers to ‘divine essence’ or more colloquially put “being God”!!

I like what Benjamin B. Warfield wrote about this verse:

“It is theotes which occurs in Col 2:9. Here Paul declares that “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwells in Christ “bodily.” The phrase “fullness of the Godhead” is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ “bodily,” that is after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism. This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not “bodily”; in them it is not manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotes may mean all that theotes can mean; on monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotes means; but theotes must mean the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotes refers to the essence and theiotes to the attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotes emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotes might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It is not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of the heathen world, to which “heroes” might aspire, and “demons” attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term “Godhead,” in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert–that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term “God,” dwells in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.”

Considering the all the Greek in this verse, Paul affirmed that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Jesus' body. This is an exceptionally emphatic statement, and IMHO this kind of language is only applicable to YHWH. Moreover, John 19:37 is HIGHLY pertinent to the significance of the “theotes” in Col 2:9:

John 19:34-37
34But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” 37And again another Scripture says,
“THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.”

In the above passage John records that Yashua literally fulfilled an OT prophecy at His crucifixion; This specific prophecy was made by YHWH through Zechariah in Zech 12:10

But interestingly, a review of the Zechariah 12:10 prophecy unmistakably reveals that YHWH promised that HE would fulfill it:

Zechariah 12:1-10
1The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. 2Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 3And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. 4In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness. 5And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God. 6In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. 7The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. 8In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. 9And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10And I [YHWH] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me [YHWH] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Let me be as clear as I can here: Only YHWH could fulfill this prophecy, because it was made specifically OF YHWH. It cannot be fulfilled by proxy, that would make YHWH a liar. John unequivocally tells us that Jesus, our Lord, literally fulfilled it at Calvary, but crucially He fulfilled it after He had died. The soldiers looked upon his lifeless body, but scriptures tells us that this was the body of YHWH. Even His dead body was considered utterly divine…..

So the fullness of deity the had permanently settles on Yahshua's body was even conditional of Him being alive! It was not a function of His Spirit…..every cell of His body was deity….

JMTCW (as Malcolm Ferris would say…)

Blessings

September 30, 2006 at 12:30 pm#29719

Sultan

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 30 2006,06:15)

Quote

He is not the Father yes, but He is God. The fulness of deity dwealt within Him.

Paul used very clear language in Col 2:9, he did not employ a figure of speech. There are no lexical ambiguities in this verse….

Colossians 2:9
“For in Him dwells (katoikei) all the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity (theotes) bodily (somatikos).”

“katoikeo” – meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling”. The verb is in the present tense, denoting durative action.

“pleroma” – indicating that which “is filled up.”

“somatikos” – meaning “corporeally” or “physically”

“theotes” – used as an abstract noun for ‘theos’. It's meaning is outlined below.

Joseph H. Thayer, the Unitarian scholar, defines theotes in his lexicon as follows:

“Theotes…(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9”

“the state of being God”….Paul's language could not have been stronger, nor more explicit, in affirming that Yahshua was 'walking deity'.

Thayer cites as one of his sources the work of Richard Trench on synonyms in the New Testament. Trench recorded:

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words records this:

A.T Robertson who is widely recognized as the worlds most authoritative Greek grammarian said in his book Word Pictures In The New Testament:

The Expositor’s Greek Testament, corroborates what Robertson wrote:

I like what Benjamin B. Warfield wrote about this verse:

John 19:34-37
34But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true;
and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” 37And again another Scripture says, “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.”

In the above passage John records that Yashua literally fulfilled an OT prophecy at His crucifixion; This specific prophecy was made by YHWH through Zechariah in Zech 12:10

But interestingly, a review of the Zechariah 12:10 prophecy unmistakably reveals that YHWH promised that HE would fulfill it:

So the fullness of deity the had permanently settles on Yahshua's body was even conditional of Him being alive! It was not a function of His Spirit…..every cell of His body was deity….

JMTCW (as Malcolm Ferris would say…)

Blessings

Isa 1:18,
You use alot of fancy words (lexical ambiguities), and opinions of men in your posts. You may consider simplifying them so that all can understand, and enjoy your input. Just my opinion of course. You believe that Jesus was actually Yahweh based on Col. 2:9. My question for you is simple. When in Jesus' life did Col 2:9 apply?

September 30, 2006 at 6:40 pm#29750

Participant

Quote (Sultan @ Sep. 30 2006,13:30)

Isa 1:18,
You use alot of fancy words (lexical ambiguities), and opinions of men in your posts. You may consider simplifying them so that all can understand, and enjoy your input.

Hi Sultan,
The posts were primarily for Casey, who has shown a little acumen with lexicography, grammar etc….I think most others here would understand most of the content, it's not indecipherable….

Did I give you opinions of men? Yes. They were for the most part the top echelon of Greek scholars. Would you have a problem with me quoting their English equivalents, or English dictionaries?

Quote

Just my opinion of course.

Haven't you just given me an opinion of a man?

“You use alot of fancy words (lexical ambiguities), and opinions of men in your posts“

Quote

You believe that Jesus was actually Yahweh based on Col. 2:9.

One of (very) many….

Quote

My question for you is simple. When in Jesus' life did Col 2:9 apply?

IMHO, He always was deity…I don't believe someone can become divine….

September 30, 2006 at 7:00 pm#29751