- This topic is empty.
- AuthorPosts
- April 5, 2010 at 10:51 pm#186074Worshipping JesusParticipant
Hi Mike
It is getting increasingly hard to keep up with the post not only because of the number but because the post with each other are getting lost in the frey.
So I took the liberty to bring our discussion here in the debates thread without distractions. This post was brought over from Here. There are no rules except to be honest and cordial. If you have any rules Mike then please state them.
“PLEASE TO ALL, THIS THREAD IS MEANT FOR ONLY MIKE AND MYSELF TO POST” WHEN THE DEBATE IS OVER THEN IT MAY BE OPEN FOR DISCUSION HERE, THANKYOU”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
Hi WJ,Wow! You really went to town, dude!
I said:
Quote You are a little confused, I think. Jesus did return to his previous glory. The problem is that his previous glory did not include equality with God, either. You said:
Quote Mike Please, show us scripture to support what you say.
Follow the logic, WJ.
What do you mean, JW logic? Since you did not address my points I will restate it until you do…“John 1:1c is the proof my friend for even if you interpret John 1:1c qualitatively, it still means what the literal translation is “And God was the Word” which means that all that God was the Word was, add that with Phil 2:6 that states Jesus was in very nature God (KJV form of God) then Jesus was equal to God. Since the Father is also in very nature God or in the form of God, and Jesus is the effulgence of God’s Glory then again all that God is Jesus is. The attributes of God are intrinsic to his nature, and Jesus has them all!”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
If Jesus was returned to his previous glory and position, and that position is at the right hand of his God, waiting for his God to place his enemies at his feet, that means there is not equality now, so there must not have been equality then.
Again, you are ignoring the truth. Where do you think Jesus was when he created the heavens and the earth by his own hands, (Heb 1:10) His previous position was side by side with the Father in the beginning, (John 1:1-3, 1 John 1:1-3)Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
Did you ever wonder why all things are said to come FROM God, THROUGH Jesus or BY Jesus or BY MEANS of Jesus. Why is nothing in creation said to come FROM Jesus or the HOLY SPIRIT?
This is another one of those “A.T” (anti-trinitarian) fallacies.- The scriptures tell us that by Jesus all things consist, or are held together. (Col 1:17}
- The scriptures tell us Jesus is the “Author and finisher” of our faith. (Heb 12:2)
- The scriptures tell us Jesus is the “Author” of eternal salvation. (Heb. 5:9)
- The scriptures tell us Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life. (John 14:6 – 1 Cor 8:6)
- The scriptures tell us Jesus is the “Light of men”. (John 1:4)
- The scriptures tell us he is the “Eternal Life” and the “Word of Life”. (1 John 1:1-3 – 1 John 5:12)
- The scriptures tell us that he “upholds all things by the word of his power”. (Heb 1:3)
- The scriptures tell us “if you have Jesus you have God”. (1 John 2:23 – 1 John 5:12)
- The scriptures tell us that “Jesus has all things”. (Matt 28:18- John 16:15 – John 3:35 – John 13:3 – Eph 1:20-23 – Col 2:9, 10 – 1 Cor 15:27)
All of the above shows that Jesus is the “Source” to us! However this does not deny that the Father is not also the source for they are “ONE”.
For example, when you say that Jesus is not the source of life but the Father is, then you are denying Jesus very own words when he says “HE” is the “Life”.
Jesus says “I am the Life”, Mike says “no you are not, the Father is, you are just his vessel”!
Jesus says “I am the Truth”, Mike says “no you are not, the Father is the Truth, you are just a vessel.”
Jesus says “All things are mine”, Mike says “No they are not because the Father gave them to you.”
Jesus says “All Authority and Power is given to me”, Mike says “no you do not have all authority and power because it is the Fathers and not yours.”
On that note, you still have not explained how if Jesus possesses ALL things and has ALL Authority and Power, that he is not equal to the Father in “Authority and Power”?
Now here is the bombshell that destroys your “By and Through” Jesus theory that because scriptures speak of the Father doing things through Jesus then of course that means Jesus cannot be God also.
For from him and **THROUGH HIM** and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. . Rom 11:36
Who is the above scripture speaking of? As you can see often Paul is speaking of God but it is not always clear if he is talking about the Father or Jesus. Now compare the language with this verse…
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, “**THROUGH WHOM** ALL THINGS CAME AND THROUGH WHOM WE LIVE“. 1 Cor 8:6
Now if all things are coming through him then it is a true statement that all things are coming from him! Since all things can also come through the Father as Rom 11:36 shows then the argument that all things coming through Jesus is proof he is not God is a “Straw”, unless of course you want to say that Rom 11:36 is Jesus, in either case it supports the Trinitarian view that Jesus is God!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40) I said: Quote Even sitting at the right hand of God, Jesus waits for his enemies to BE MADE his footstool. By God, of course. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2010,17:20) No the verse says nothing about God doing it for him, The Father has already done it by giving him all things. So Jesus has all the authority and power and everything that he needs to make his enemies his footstool. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
The Scriptures repeat many times what is stated at Psalm 110 NWT:Quote The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
Jesus knew this verse referred to him. So did the apostles. Why is it that you and Jack can't understand that 1 Cor 15:25 is a referral from Paul to this Psalm? Never mind, we all know you understand, but fear admitting it will strike a blow against the trinity doctrine. And Hebrews 10:13 is worded a little funny if it is Jesus who will make his enemies a footstool, don't you think. Why the “waits for them to BE MADE…” wording? Why not, “waits until HE MAKES…”?
You say “A blow against the Trinity”, LOL. Mike it is I who have been saying that the Father has already placed all of Jesus enemies under his feet after the resurrection by raising him up far above all principality and power and might and every name that is named just as the scriptures declare, (Eph 1:21 – Eph 4:10 – Phil 2:9,10 – Matt 28:18 – 1 Cor 15:27 Heb 2:8)I am glad you have involked Pss 110, so lets look at its context and see what it says…
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord ('Adonay) at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill [the places] with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. Pss 110:4-6 Who are these verses speaking of mike?
Notice the Lord ('Adonay) is at YHWH's right hand. 'Adonay is a Hebrew name for YHWH. Do a study and see how many times YHWH is called 'Adonay. This is why the Apostles understood that Jesus was YHWH and that name YHWH was not exclusive to the Father as the Name of the Father now is not exclusive to the Father either. Matt 28:19
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40) You said: Quote Again, the Father has already done this… Matt 28:18- John 16:15 – John 3:35 – John 13:3 – Eph 1:20-23 – Col 2:9, 10 – 1 Cor 15:27
This part confuses me. We have Scriptures saying his enemies have already been placed under him. Then we have ones saying he waits for it to be done. While I think God has given him the power already, I don't think that everything has been actually placed under him yet. I think that happens when he opens the scroll in Rev. So it has happened prophetically, but not in reality yet. IMO
Now you are starting to get it. The problem you and every A.T. has is not reconciling all of scriptures together as the whole council of God and not just picking and choosing what fits into your personal bias.So let’s go over this one step at a time…
and put everything under his feet.”* In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. Heb 2:8
Here we see that post resurrection the Father put all things under Jesus feet by raising him up far above all principality and power and might and every name that is named just as the scriptures declare, (Eph 1:21 – Eph 4:10 – Phil 2:9,10 – Matt 28:18 – 1 Cor 15:27 – Heb 2:8 – 1 Peter 3:22) So in other words the Father has done his part by raising Jesus far above ALL and he is seated at the right hand of the Father, ALL authority and power being made subject to him, Jesus. But though we see the Father has done his part in raising him above all things, not all things have yet been subjected to him. Now compare Heb 2:8 with 1 Cor 15:27…
For he “has put everything under his feet.”* Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:27, 28
Again Mike, we see here that the Father “HAS” put all things under his feet except himself of course, but then the scriptures says “And WHEN ALL THINGS SHALL BE SUBDUED UNTO HIM…”, meaning that Jesus now has “ALL” Authority and Power” to subdue all things to himself as 1 Peter 3:22 – Phil 3:21 state and Pss 110 says he will do!
Jesus is the Judge and the rewarder of them that do good and evil. Everyman shall stand before the “Judgment seat of Jesus” which is the Judgment seat of God! Rom 14:10 – 2 Cor 5:10
So it is both the Father and Jesus that will subdue all things to himself, the Father by giving Jesus “ALL” Authority and Power” and Jesus who has it “ALL” carrying out the execution of subduing ALL things to himself and then handing the Kingdom back to the Father and subjecting himself also to the Father.
This has not happened yet Mike, therefore Jesus is sitting in the throne of God acting as God and playing the role of God, or at best he is God, One with the Father and the Holy Spirit! I choose to believe all the scriptures which also claim Jesus is God!
PLEASE DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU ARE WJ OR MIKE, THANKYOU!
WJ
April 5, 2010 at 11:59 pm#186085Worshipping JesusParticipantMike
This is the second part of your long post and it isn't getting any shorter.
PLEASE DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU ARE WJ OR MIKE, THANKYOU!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40) But about “ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY”: You are taking it too literally. If Jesus has literally ALL POWER, then Jehovah and the Holy Spirit have absolutely none.
So now Jesus didn’t literally mean that the Father had given him all things or that he has all authority and power? So basically the scriptures are useless that say he has all things? No Mike, that is your human logic at work and a failure to see that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one God who have different roles. All that God is now dwells in Jesus in bodily form and he has committed all things to Jesus who now carries out all things as God! The Holy Spirit is even subject to Jesus now that he is no longer in the flesh!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
Nor do the angels, nor do we. Try to follow the logic, WJ. What it means is that basically, Jehovah has given Jesus His signet ring. He has the run of the place and power and authority over everything except God. When Pharaoh put Joseph in this same position, Joseph was second in command, not first. Joseph had (to repeat what I said yesterday) exactly “all the power and authority” that Pharaoh allowed him. Genesis 41 says:Quote 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, [c] and men shouted before him, “Make way [d] !” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”
Do you see that even as Joseph is “in charge of the whole land of Egypt”, he is “second in command”. It is the same situation with God and Jesus. God put Jesus in charge, but He is still the only God as He always has been. Jesus' “being in charge” grants him to ride in the chariot “as His second in command”. Get it?
Yea I get it, but the analogy falls short because you do not want to look at some significant points that reveal a huge gap in the two examples.Point number one is that Joseph was never given the name or title of Pharaoh.
Jesus however bears the same name and the same titles as the Father. Matt. 28:19 – John 1:1 – 2 Peter 1:1 – Tit 2:13 – Heb 1:8 – Isa 9:6 – John 20:28 – Rev 1:8 – Rev 17:14 – Rev 19:16 – 1 Tim 6:15 – Rev 21:6 – Rev 22:13 – Jude 1:4, 5 – 1 Cor 10:4
Secondly, Jesus sits in the throne and is worshipped with the Father! Rev 5:6 – 7:17 – Rev 22:3 The throne of David is the throne of God and Jesus will rule in it forever with the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Jesus.
This is the Father sharing his Glory with another who is one with him as God!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
So when Jesus finally subdues the last of his enemies using God's power and army, Jehovah will take the signet ring back. Jesus will still be King of kings and Lord of lords and the greatest, most powerful being in existence next to God, but at the time that God takes back the signet ring and Jesus becomes “just another subject of the KING of the “King of kings”, God will be ruling directly over His subjects. IMO
You are almost there except a couple little subtle suggestions. First you are implying that God’s power and army is exclusively the Fathers, but the truth is Jesus has all things including the Angels worshipping him. Also your language “Jehovah will take the signet ring back” is not found in the scriptures and it is Jesus that will subject the Kingdom and himself to the Father when he (Jesus) has subjected all things back to himself!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
You said:Quote And I am not so sure that you are using yours right now! Are animals equal to man? Do you give the “Same Honor” to an animal as to a human? No, animals are not equal to man. That is the point. EVEN AS does not imply equality. It means “just as”, according to Strong's. You honor the Father, so ALSO honor me.
Mike you just effectively made Jesus words of none effect. Jesus did not say if you honor the Father honor me! As you say strongs says “Just as” so let’s see how that works…Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, “THAT ALL MAY HONOR THE SON **JUST AS** THEY HONOR THE FATHER. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. John 5:22, 23
The context of the verse is clearly stating that the Father has committed “ALL Judgment” to Jesus and for that reason we should honor him “Just as” we honor the Father or God! This does not mean what you say “You honor the Father, so ALSO honor me. Jesus is saying “Honor the Son just as you honor (God) the Father.”Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
We know that Jehovah will share His glory and honor with no other. He even says, “Who is my equal?”
You said:Quote The Apostle John said that Jesus was making himself equal to God, and he wrote about him in John 1:1! Jesus words in John 5:23 were recorded right after John said…
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, “but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God”. John 5:18
This one backfires on the Trinitarians twicefold. First, did Jesus confirm what they thought, or correct them? Second, this happened while Jesus was on earth. You need to make up your mind. You jump on this story like it's proof that Jesus was indeed equal to God, but then you flip flop and say that when Jesus said the Father was great
er, it was because he was in the form of man at the time. Which is it? Was Jesus, who was in fact the Son of God while he was on the earth, equal to God then or not?
In your mind it backfires, but you fail to see that Jesus didn’t empty himself of his “divine nature” put gave up Divine prerogatives to come in the likeness of sinful flesh. John 1:1c “The Word was God” was still God when he took on the flesh tent.Jesus could declare equality with the Father because of his nature though he for a time was in subjection to the Father. (Phil 2:6-9) He said he and the Father were “One” in John 10 where we find the Jews wanting to stone him for his claim again. When Jesus was in the flesh he made many claims that had not come to pass until after the resurrection. Here are some examples… John 3:35 – John 13:3 – John 16:15 – John 10:27-30 Notice the context of John 10:27-30, Jesus was claiming that “No man can pluck them (his sheep) out of his hand, yet we know that he is speaking of his glorified state when he in fact has “ALL” authority and power after his resurrection!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2010,23:40)
You said:Quote Now some questions.. 1. Does Jesus have “ALL authority and Power”, if so explain how that is not equality with the Father who has “All authority and Power”?
2. Is Jesus Kingdom subject to the Father at this time?
3. Is Jesus subject to the Father at this time?
4. Is Jesus your Only Owner (Master) and Lord?
1. Explained.
2. Explained.
3. Explained.
4. Yes, for now. Jehovah will not directly communicate with us for the time being. He has appointed Jesus as His mediator. Since I know he is the acting mouthpiece for Jehovah and I know he doesn't speak of his own initiative, but only what he hears from his Father, I must consider Jesus my only active Lord and Master until God begins ruling directly again. This is God's will, that Jesus be our only Lord and Master for a while. And as I implied yesterday, I will bow down to a rock, if it becomes God's will for me to do so.
I do not even know how to answer this. For instance on the 4th question you say…“Yes, for now. Jehovah will not directly communicate with us for the time being.”
Where do you get this stuff from? Do you realize what you are admitting to here? Do you realize that you are implying that you have no direct fellowship with the Father or God? At least Trintarians admit that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are in unison and work in complete harmony with the other each fulfilling his own role!
First you are implying that someday Jesus will cease to be your “Only Master and Lord”, is there a scripture for that? What about Jesus sitting in the Throne of David and ruling and reigning with the Father forever and his Kingdom knowing no end? (Isa 9:6, 7)
Secondly, you are implying that Jehovah does not speak to us directly now. In other words God does not talk directly to us now? But now your trust is in a mediator who is your only Lord and Master but is not your God? How does that fit into the “Shema” commandment?
How does that work with this verse…
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. AND OUR FELLOWSHIP IS WITH THE FATHER AND WITH HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST. 1 John 1:3
It seems your statement does not include direct communication or fellowship with the Father but only with the Mediator. I am not sure if you believe Jesus is a man or an angel or what he is in your mind, but it is beginning to sound like Jesus is an “arch- angel” or something. That is what the JWs believe isn’t it?
What is Jesus to you?
PLEASE DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU ARE WJ OR MIKE, THANKYOU!
April 6, 2010 at 5:30 am#186105mikeboll64BlockedQuote (WorshippingJesus @ April 06 2010,10:51) “John 1:1c is the proof my friend for even if you interpret John 1:1c qualitatively, it still means what the literal translation is “And God was the Word” which means that all that God was the Word was, add that with Phil 2:6 that states Jesus was in very nature God (KJV form of God) then Jesus was equal to God. Since the Father is also in very nature God or in the form of God, and Jesus is the effulgence of God’s Glory then again all that God is Jesus is. The attributes of God are intrinsic to his nature, and Jesus has them all!”
Hi WJ,Let's take these one at a time. The order you have pasted them is fine for me.
John 1:1 is properly translated “and the Word was a god”. In the first mention of God in John 1:1, “and the Word was with God”, the definite article “ton”, or “the” precedes the word “theos”, and that points to a distict identity – THE God Almighty. The second “theos” has no article in front of it. In other words, it doesn't say “and the Word was THE God”. The Koine Greek didn't use an indefinite article such as “a” or “an”. You had to figure it out by context. For example,
Mark 6:49 says:Quote 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. The Greek does not have “a” ghost or spirit. You have to use the context to figure out that we have to add the word “a” so it makes sense. And in John 8:44, it says:
Quote 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Same thing with the two “a's” I bolded.
So, John omitted the definite article “the” before the second “theos”. Why?
Anyway, how can the Word be WITH God and BE God at the same time? Can God the Father be WITH God the Son if they are in fact not two Gods, but one?
Phil 2:6, “in the form of” doesn't mean equality. Jesus became “in the form of a servant” as a flesh and blood man. John the Baptist was also a servant in the form of a flesh and blood man. Does this mean Jesus was, or was exactly equal to John the Baptist? Don't read more into it than what is stated. Jesus was a spirit being like God, and then became a being of flesh and bone, like John the Baptist. No more, no less.
peace and love,
mikeApril 10, 2010 at 6:24 pm#186645Worshipping JesusParticipantHi Mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 06 2010,10:51) “John 1:1c is the proof my friend for even if you interpret John 1:1c qualitatively, it still means what the literal translation is “And God was the Word” which means that all that God was the Word was, add that with Phil 2:6 that states Jesus was in very nature God (KJV form of God) then Jesus was equal to God. Since the Father is also in very nature God or in the form of God, and Jesus is the effulgence of God’s Glory, then all that God is Jesus is. The attributes of God are intrinsic to his nature, and Jesus has them all!” Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30)
Hi WJ,Let's take these one at a time. The order you have pasted them is fine for me.
Good!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30) John 1:1 is properly translated “and the Word was a god”.
First of all, adding an indefinite article in John 1:1c is reckless because the term “a God” is nowhere else found in the NT in referring to the Father or Jesus by the translators.The literal translation of the text is “God was the Word”.
Second, it is a blatant confession of Polytheism and is an insult to John who obviously could have used another word like “Divine” or “Godly or “Begotten Son” to convey that Jesus had divine qualities, he would have used the adjective for “divine” [theios] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3, but he didn’t because his intent was to show who the Word was in verse 18…
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30) In the first mention of God in John 1:1, “and the Word was with God”, the definite article “ton”, or “the” precedes the word “theos”, and that points to a distint identity – THE God Almighty. The second “theos” has no article in front of it.
Then why does your translation put an indefinite article in front of it? No credible translation or Greek scholar would render it that way. If the lack of the definite article demands that an indefinite article be put there and the reading to be “and the word was a god” (NWT), then to be consistent the NWT should translate the following examples in the same chapter that way for they do not have the definite article…- the Word was a god 1:1
- a representative of a god 1:6
- to become a god's children 1:12
- man's will, but from a god 1:13
- No man has seen a god 1:8a
- the only begotten a god 1:8b
- 'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning' 1:1,2
- 'a life' rather than 'life' 1:4
- 'a John' rather than 'John' 1:6 Source.
So to say that the lack of the definite article in John 1:1c cannot mean that the subject the “Word” is God is a straw man argument seeing that in many cases the word God is referring to God without the definite article. Besides since Jesus is referred to as being God with the definite article, the translators could have added a definite article in John 1:1c but didn’t because unlike the JW translators they wanted to stay true to the text and also to not totally confuse the reader to thinking that the Word could be the Father.
Another example where the NWT translators did this is Titus 2:13 where the translators due to their bias added a definite article rather than holding to the GSR which has never been debunked.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30)
In other words, it doesn't say “and the Word was THE God”. The Koine Greek didn't use an indefinite article such as “a” or “an”. You had to figure it out by context. For example,
John 1:1c does not say “and the Word was a god” either does it? No, you mean you have to figure it out by your bias. While we are on this subject let me show you another bias that is total corruption by the NWT. The NWT quotes…1 Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you **God** to Phar´aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. Exod 7:1 NWT
Why didn't the JW translators put an “a” there like all other translations? To make it worse is they use a capitol “G” for God, yet in John 1:1c they add the “a” and do not capitalize the “G” for God.
Can you see the bias and the down right corruption of the text? Not only are they promoting Polytheism in Moses case but they are making Jesus less than Moses!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30)
Mark 6:49 says:Quote 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. The Greek does not have “a” ghost or spirit. You have to use the context to figure out that we have to add the word “a” so it makes sense. And in John 8:44, it says:
Quote 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Same thing with the two “a's” I bolded.
Then be consistent and translate the word God when it is found in chapter 1 of John where there is no definite article with a indefinite article “a”.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30)
So, John omitted the definite article “the” before the second “theos”. Why?
Because John didn’t want to create the confusion that the Word was the Father yet at the same time saying that the Word was God in nature, in other words everything that God is the Word was. The literal again says “And God was the Word”.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April
06 2010,01:30)
Anyway, how can the Word be WITH God and BE God at the same time? Can God the Father be WITH God the Son if they are in fact not two Gods, but one?
Yes, because the term God does not classify identity but rather nature or a class of being.How can two be “One Flesh”? But we know that they are, and we know that Jesus is the exact representation of all that the Father is.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30)
Phil 2:6, “in the form of” doesn't mean equality. Jesus became “in the form of a servant” as a flesh and blood man.
Then in the form of a servant doesn’t mean equal too a servant.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30)
John the Baptist was also a servant in the form of a flesh and blood man. Does this mean Jesus was, or was exactly equal to John the Baptist? Don't read more into it than what is stated.
I think you are reading more into it because Jesus was equally man as John the Baptist!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2010,01:30)
Jesus was a spirit being like God, and then became a being of flesh and bone, like John the Baptist. No more, no less.
First you say that Jesus was not “exactly equal” to John the Baptist now you say he is. You seem confused!WJ
April 10, 2010 at 8:01 pm#186654mikeboll64BlockedGood post WJ,
I can't wait to respond!
mike
April 12, 2010 at 4:03 am#186770mikeboll64BlockedHi WJ,
You said:
Quote First of all, adding an indefinite article in John 1:1c is reckless because the term “a God” is nowhere else found in the NT in referring to the Father or Jesus by the translators. The literal translation of the text is “God was the Word”.
“god was the word” is correct. I agree. But why does John use the definite article “the” in front of all three mentions of “word”, but in only one of the two mentions of “god”. He could have easily said, “THE god was the word”, if that is what he wanted to convey. I showed you similar statements where you have to understand when to add the indifinite article. Why would this statement not fit in with the others?You quoted:
Quote No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18 Okay, Jack! It actually says:
Quote 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. Think about the translation you used. But let's use your buddy Jack's definition of the word “seen”. Then it says, “No one has ever understood God, but God, who is at God's side, has explained God.” And who is this “Father” who is at the One and Only God's side? He can't be God, because God the One and Only is God, right? And God cannot be at His own side, can He?
You said:
Quote Then why does your translation put an indefinite article in front of it? No credible translation or Greek scholar would render it that way. I haven't translated a Bible of my own yet. And I quote many different translations, mostly the NIV though. Do the “credible” translations add the indefinite article in John 8:44, that I quoted? Do they add it both times?
You said:
Quote If the lack of the definite article demands that an indefinite article be put there and the reading to be “and the word was a god” (NWT), then to be consistent the NWT should translate the following examples in the same chapter that way for they do not have the definite article… Didn't I say right from the jump that the indefinite article is used or not used based on the context? Do the “credible” translators add the indefinite article to any of those you mentioned? It seems so far, we differ in adding an indefinite article in only one sentence in the whole Bible. Which translation makes more sense? That God was WITH God, or that God was WITH a different divine being? I've already showed you how the translation you like is almost comedic when relayed literally.
You said:
Quote Besides since Jesus is referred to as being God with the definite article, What? Where? And don't show a quote that was originally ascribed to Jehovah.
You said:
Quote the translators could have added a definite article in John 1:1c but didn’t because unlike the JW translators they wanted to stay true to the text and also to not totally confuse the reader to thinking that the Word could be the Father. But it does totally confuse because we know the the only true God at all is the Father. The translation you use says the Word is the One and Only God, and apparently the Father is some old dude hanging out beside the One and Only God.
You said:
Quote Another example where the NWT translators did this is Titus 2:13 where the translators due to their bias added a definite article rather than holding to the GSR which has never been debunked.
The word “savior” in Titus 2:13 is genetive (thank you thinker). So it is more accurately translated by the NWT. The Greek says “…while we wait for the manifestation of the glory of the great God and “of” savior of us Christ Jesus, who gave himself…” Sorry Keith, I think the NWT is right on this one. It is strange to me that Young's Literal, while going against the flow of almost every other translation with their “joint heirs OF Christ” interpretation, sticks with the norm on this one.You said:
Quote Can you see the bias and the down right corruption of the text? Not only are they promoting Polytheism in Moses case but they are making Jesus less than Moses!
Good point. I won't use a capital “g” in my translation, okay? Seriously, do you think they are saying that Jehovah “poofed” Moses into God Almighty? Jehovah wanted to show His powers to the Egyptians through Moses. Moses would be like God, or Jehovah, to them, not like “a god”, of which they already had many.You said:
Quote Then be consistent and translate the word God when it is found in chapter 1 of John where there is no definite article with a indefinite article “a”.
One must use intelligence when adding the indefinite article. I don't think I want to read your translation, there's going to be too many “a god”s.You said:
Quote Yes, because the term God does not classify identity but rather nature or a class of being.
Isn't that what the NWT's intepretation says? The Word is not God the person, but in the nature of God.You said:
Quote How can two be “One Flesh”? Please explain how this statement makes the trinity true.
You said:
Quote Then in the form of a servant doesn’t mean equal to a servant.
No. Jesus was not John the Baptist, or equal to him. Yet, both were in the form of a servant.You said:
Quote I think you are reading more into it because Jesus was equally man as John the Baptist! Am I? Was he? Read:
Quote Matthew 3:11 NIV
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.Sound like Jesus and John were equal to you? And take note that the Holy Spirit is baptized WITH, not IN THE NAME OF.
You said:
Quote First you say that Jesus was not “exactly equal” to John the Baptist now you say he is. You seem confused!
Keith, that's the first time you tried twisting my words, like Jack frequently does. I hope it's the last. I said “like” God, and “like” John the Baptist. Not equal on either counts.peace and love,
mikeApril 13, 2010 at 8:29 pm#186962Worshipping JesusParticipantHi Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
Hi WJ,Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) First of all, adding an indefinite article in John 1:1c is reckless because the term “a God” is nowhere else found in the NT in referring to the Father or Jesus by the translators. The literal translation of the text is “God was the Word”.
“god was the word” is correct. I agree. But why does John use the definite article “the” in front of all three mentions of “word”, but in only one of the two mentions of “god”. He could have easily said, “THE god was the word”, if that is what he wanted to convey.
I have already explained that if John would have added the definite article to John 1:1c then the reader would perceive that John was saying the Word was the Father! By not using the definite article and using the word “Theos” John is able to convey that Jesus is not the Father yet Jesus was in very nature God (Phil 2:6), or in other words all that God was the Word was. “The Word was God”.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
I showed you similar statements where you have to understand when to add the indifinite article. Why would this statement not fit in with the others?
Yes you showed me examples and not a single one of them was including the word “Theos”. I have shown you that in every other example in the NT the word “Theos” is used in referring to the Father and Jesus, not once do you find the indefinite article “a” added. So your case is weak and your point is moot!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18 Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
Okay, Jack! It actually says:Quote 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
As Jack has shown you the word begotten is misleading for Monogenes is not defined as begotten.No one has ever seen God. The only one himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET
38tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18). NET Bible.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Think about the translation you used.
That’s funny Mike, coming from someone who uses the most corrupt and least scholarly translation of all.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) But let's use your buddy Jack's definition of the word “seen”. Then it says, “No one has ever understood God, but God, who is at God's side, has explained God.”
Well, okay Mike lets use your example and hold to the NWT and your view of John 1:1c in mind, since the verse is talking about the Word right?So mike says…
“Then it says, “No one has ever understood God, but “a god”, who is at God's side, has explained God.”Since you say that Jesus was begotten in the beginning and the term here should be “begotten god” then why didn't the Apostle simply write “The Word was a “begotten god” in John 1:1c?
So how would your interpretation line up with the Hebrew Scriptures that says…
YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE“. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT
Mike you insist as well as the JWs that Jesus was begotten or created before the foundation of the earth, but according to Jehovah’s words above “THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”. How do you and Watchtower explain this contradiction? Jack has totally beaten you scripturally and because of your pride you hold on to that which you said with your own words you cannot prove!
YHWH also says…
Do not be in dread, YOU people, and do not become stupefied. Have I not from that time on caused you individually to hear and told it out? And YOU are my witnesses. “DOES THERE EXIST A GOD BESIDES ME”? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none. Isa 44:8Again, the NWT translators should have thought these things out before they translated for they contradict Jehovah by saying there is “a god” with the Father in John 1:1c and that Moses was a “God” to Pharoah.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) And who is this “Father” who is at the One and Only God's side?
With your Polytheistic view it’s more like who is this “god” at the Fathers side when YHWH said that there are no other gods beside him!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) He can't be God, because God the One and Only is God, right? And God cannot be at His own side, can He?
According to John he can…“the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Your problem is your bias forces Johns words to read into it what is not there. As I explained John could have used another Greek word to convey something different if he wanted too, but he didn’t, did he? Once you realize that the word “Theos” is not exclusive to the Father but also is ascribed to the Son and the Holy Spirit, then you will begin to see that scripturally the only thing that makes sense is the ontological oneness of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Then why does your translation put an indefinite article in front of it? No credible translation or Greek scholar would render it that way. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) I haven't translated a Bible of my own yet. And I quote many different translations, mostly the NIV though. Do the “credible” translations add the indefinite article in John 8:44, that I quoted? Do they add it both times?
Your example is weak for the word “Theos” is not found there. Show me any other example where the translators translated “Theos” when refering to the Father or Jesus with an indefinite article “a” and you might have a case.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) If the lack of the definite article demands that an indefinite article be put there and the reading to be “and the word was a god” (NWT), then to be consistent the NWT should translate the following examples in the same chapter that way for they do not have the definite article… Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
Didn't I say right from the jump that the indefinite article is used or not used based on the context? Do the “credible” translators add the indefinite article to any of those you mentioned?
No, and that is the point, none of the Translators added the “a” to John 1:1c either. The translators are smart enough to know that the writers of the scriptures were strict Monotheistic Jews and to add an “a” to the word “Theos” (god) when referring to the Father or Jesus would be a slap in their face especially in John’s case in John 1:1 where he calls the Father God and calls the Word God, which can only mean that they are “One” in their respective nature or ontology!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) It seems so far, we differ in adding an indefinite article in only one sentence in the whole Bible.
Yep, you and a few isolated translations like the NWT side against the cream of Greek Scholarship and all the major translations on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org.I am going to stick with those who were real Greek and Hebrew scholars!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
Which translation makes more sense? That God was WITH God, or that God was WITH a different divine being? I've already showed you how the translation you like is almost comedic when relayed literally.
What is comedic is the NWT contradicts itself and Jehovah’s own words, and you agree with it. How weak.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Besides since Jesus is referred to as being God with the definite article, Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) What? Where? And don't show a quote that was originally ascribed to Jehovah.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, “The mighty God“, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Titus 2:13
AT Robertson speaks of the verse…
Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou qeou kai swthro Ihsou Cristou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with qeou and swthro just as in 2 Peter 1:1 2 Peter 1:11 . See Robertson, Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Cristou Ihsou.
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” have received a faith as precious as ours:”, 2 Peter 1:1
AT Robertson also speaks of this verse…
The O.T. sense of dikaiosunh applied to God ( Romans 1:17 ) and here to Christ. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou qeou hmwn kai swthro Ihsou Cristou). So the one article (tou) with qeou and swthro requires precisely as with tou kuriou hmwn kai swthro Ihsou Cristou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in Romans 1:11 as in Romans 2:20 ; Romans 3:2 Romans 3:18 . So in 1 Peter 1:3 we have o qeo kai pathr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of qeo for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13 . The use of qeo by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in John 1:1 disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in Titus 2:13 disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God ( John 20:28 ) and he himself had called him the Son of God ( Matthew 16:16 ).Robertson himself, a world renowned Greek Grammarian also invokes the GSR which has never been debunked!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) the translators could have added a definite article in John 1:1c but didn’t because unlike the JW translators they wanted to stay true to the text and also to not totally confuse the reader to thinking that the Word could be the Father. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) But it does totally confuse because we know the only true God at all is the Father.
It confuses you because you refuse to see the Oneness of the Father and Jesus. Millions of believers worldwide accept the simple reading that the Word was God! So since you say the Father is “the only true God”, then that must mean that to you Jesus is not “a true God”, right? Since we are on this subject lets see if you are just playing lip service to Jesus. Is Jesus your “god” Mike? You say he is “a god” then you should be able to confess him as your “god”, right? Is he your “true god” or your “false god”? Why don’t you and the JWs and ATs (Anti-Trinitarians) confess Jesus as their “god”? They love to say that God means “mighty one” so they have no problem with Jesus being called the Mighty god! But I do not hear them calling him their “Mighty god”, why is that Mike?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
The translation you use says the Word is the One and Only God, and apparently the Father is some old dude hanging out beside the One and Only God.
But according to you the Father is hanging out with a little “god” making himself a liar. Isa 43:10Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Another example where the NWT translators did this is Titus 2:13 where the translators due to their bias added a definite article rather than holding to the GSR which has never been debunked. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
The word “savior” in Titus 2:13 is genitive (thank you thinker). So it is more accurately translated by the NWT. The Greek says “…while we wait for the manifestation of the glory of the great God and “of” savior of us Christ Jesus, who gave himself…” Sorry Keith, I think the NWT is right on this one. It is strange to me that Young's Literal, while going against the flow of almost every other translation with their “joint heirs OF Christ” interpretation, sticks with the norm on this one.
It doesn't surprise me about the YLT! What does the genitive have to do with the “one article” for the adjoining nouns God and Savour? See AT Robertson’s notes above and the GSR have never been debunked. Why do you insist on your own biased reading in the text when the same rule applying to the statement “The God and Father” to you means the same person. Jesus is God and Savour isn’t he. Maybe the NWT should have translated it “a great god and savour”, since they believe he is a mighty god.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Can you see the bias and the down right corruption of the text? Not only are they promoting Polytheism in Moses case but they are making Jesus less than Moses! Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) Good point. I won't use a capital “g” in my translation, okay? Seriously, do you think they are saying that Jehovah “poofed” Moses into God Almighty? Jehovah wanted to show His powers to the Egyptians through Moses. Moses would be like God, or Jehovah, to them, not like “a god”, of which they already had many.
The key is Moses was not a god at all was he? Only to Pharaoh he was a god. Pharaoh was a Polytheist. Was Moses a god in any sense to the children of Israel or to YHWH who said…YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE“. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Then be consistent and translate the word God when it is found in chapter 1 of John where there is no definite article with an indefinite article “a”. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) One must use intelligence when adding the indefinite article. I don't think I want to read your translation, there's going to be too many “a god’s.
This is the kind of diversions and patronizing tactics that you use on Jack often, which is telling. You are the one who believes the translation should be “and the Word was a god” which is totally inconsistent with every other time the word Theos is translated when referring to the Father or Jesus.But I will take your statement to mean that the cream of Scholarship that brings all the major translations found are not intelligent but that the lonely NWT non Greek scholars and the few scragglier translators of a few obscure versions are.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Yes, because the term God does not classify identity but rather nature or a class of being. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) Isn't that what the NWT's interpretation says?
The Word is not God the person, but in the nature of God.
No that is not what the NWT does, for the NWT classifies Jesus as a lesser class of being or of a lesser nature by saying that he is “a god”. John could have used another word as I have shown you if he was conveying Jesus as being less than the Father in nature.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) How can two be “One Flesh”? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) Please explain how this statement makes the trinity true.
It doesn’t, but it does show “plurality of oneness” which you totally cast aside as a possibility for the two to be One God and with each other, since the word God (Theos) does not classify identity!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) Then in the form of a servant doesn’t mean equal to a servant. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
No. Jesus was not John the Baptist, or equal to him. Yet, both were in the form of a servant.
So what is the form of a servant Mike? It is a human servant isn’t it? Was John the Baptist less human than Jesus?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) I think you are reading more into it because Jesus was equally man as John the Baptist! Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
Am I? Was he? Read:Quote Matthew 3:11 NIV
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Come on Mike, you are playing that diversionary game again. Are you less human than Jesus?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03)
Sound like Jesus and John were equal to you?
John and Jesus were both human Mike, do you deny that they were equally human?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) And take note that the Holy Spirit is baptized WITH, not IN THE NAME OF.
So what is your point?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 10 2010,14:24) First you say that Jesus was not “exactly equal” to John the Baptist now you say he is. You seem confused! Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,00:03) Keith, that's the first time you tried twisting my words, like Jack frequently does. I hope it's the last. I said “like” God, and “like” John the Baptist. Not equal on either counts.
Then you need to be clearer, for your two statements seem contradictory. You know the point I was making but you are simply dancing around the point and being elusive. Was John the Baptist equally human as Jesus or not?WJ
April 14, 2010 at 6:04 am#187040mikeboll64BlockedHi WJ,
You said:
Quote I have already explained that if John would have added the definite article to John 1:1c then the reader would perceive that John was saying the Word was the Father! By not using the definite article and using the word “Theos” John is able to convey that Jesus is not the Father yet Jesus was in very nature God (Phil 2:6), or in other words all that God was the Word was. “The Word was God”.
That is your view of what John had in mind. Notice how even your trinitarian mind goes right to the thought, “When John refers to “THE God”, he means “the Father”. Yet there is no actual mention of “the Father”. And if your view is right, John calls the Father “the God”, but not the Word. But in your view, the Word is also equally “the God”. Could he not have said, “the Word was with THE God, and the Word was also THE God”, if that is what he meant?But that isn't really what John believed, was it? John, who quoted Jesus as saying “the Father is greater” while he was on earth. The same John who quoted Jesus as saying, “for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God.“, after he was in heaven and been given “all power and authority. The same John who recorded Jesus praying:
Quote 1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. So it appears your view is correct in assuming that by “THE God”, John was referring to the Father. Unfortunately for the trinitarians, the Father is “THE ONLY TRUE GOD”. So he used the definite article only once in front of “god”, not to avoid confusing the Word with the Father, but to avoid supporting future trinitarians who think that the Word was actually “THE God”.
You said:
Quote As Jack has shown you the word begotten is misleading for Monogenes is not defined as begotten.
And as I have challenged Jack, I will challenge you. Keep in mind that Strong's agrees that it actually means the “only begotten” Son of God.Quote I asked Jack: Does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word? Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten. And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”. Is this information correct?
You quoted:Quote No one has ever seen God. The only one himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET
You can use whatever translation you like to prove your bias, but the fact is that the Greek says, “the only begotten god, who is in the bosom position of the Father”.You quoted:
Quote From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Jack tried to use this also. But what you both apparently fail to grasp is that it is not the “genes” part of the word that doesn't fit, but the “mono” part. Isaac was indeed “begotten” by Abraham. He wasn't the “ONLY” begotten, but he was “BEGOTTEN” by him.
You said:
Quote So mike says…
“Then it says, “No one has ever understood God, but “a god”, who is at God's side, has explained God.”
Yes! Now you're getting there! No one has “understood” God at any time. Therefore, how can God explain God? No one has understood God at any time. Someone who is a heavenly spiritual powerful being (a god), is the one who has explained THE GOD that until then, no one had been able to understand.You said:
Quote Since you say that Jesus was begotten in the beginning and the term here should be “begotten god” then why didn't the Apostle simply write “The Word was a “begotten god” in John 1:1c?
John explained exactly who the Word was using those exact words 17 verses later. IMO, calling Jesus the Word was to let us know that he was Jehovah's “mouthpiece”. (I have info on that if you're interested.) Then later, John let's us know that the Word is the same being known also as Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten god, the Son of Man and the Lamb.You quoted:
Quote “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT
There is absolutely no other GOD besides Jehovah. That includes His Son, Jesus Christ. There are however, other “gods”. The Scriptures prove it, and Jesus is one of them. So is Satan. And Jehovah has always been the ultimate Savior, no matter which tool He used to do the saving: rain, King David, Jesus, angels, etc. So if Jesus is our savior (which he is), isn't the One who SENT him for that purpose the ultimate savior?You said:
Quote How do you and Watchtower explain this contradiction? There is no contradiction. Jehovah is “the ONLY TRUE GOD”. But do the Scriptures talk of other gods or not, Keith? Is Jehovah called “the God of gods” or not? Is that also a contradiction?
You said:
Quote Again, the NWT translators should have thought these things out before they translated for they contradict Jehovah by saying there is “a god” with the Father in John 1:1c and that Moses was a “God” to Pharoah.
I guess Paul contradicted Jehovah when he called Satan “the god of this world”. The word used is theos, is it not? And Jehovah wasn't saying to Moses, “You will be 'a god' to them”, was he? He was saying you will represent Me, or “be THE God” to them. Again, the NWT is the one that translates the thought correctly.You said:
Quote Once you realize that the word “Theos” is not exclusive to the Father but also is ascribed to the Son and the Holy Spirit, …and Satan, and Judges, and in Hebrew angels, Dagon, Baal, etc. Except you have to omit the Holy Spirit.
You said:
Quote Your example is weak for the word “Theos” is not found there. Show me any other example where the translators translated “Theos” when refering to the Father or Jesus with an indefinite article “a” and you might have a case. The example is only to show that in the Greek, there weren't indefinite articles. You have to use your brain and the context to know where they are to be inserted. And I'm sorry, but John 1:1 is the only instance when, according to context, it should be added – as far as I know so far.
You said:
Quote No, and that is the point, none of the Translators added the “a” to John 1:1c either. The translators are smart enough to know that the writers of the scriptures were strict Monotheistic Jews and to add an “a” to the word “Theos” (god) when referring to the Father or Jesus would be a slap in their face especially in John’s case in John 1:1 where he calls the Father God and calls the Word God, which can only mean that they are “One” in their respective nature or ontology!
So what you are saying then, is that the NWT adds an indefinite article in only ONE instance that the others don't? All your examples are translated the same in the NWT and the “credible” translations? And yet you slam the translation like it was written by 2 year olds. And John doesn't call the Father God and the Word God. He calls only the Father “THE God”, just as Jesus does.You quoted:
Quote “The mighty God”, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6
I don't see the word “the” in the Hebrew, and most translations don't use “the”. The NIV, translated by trinitarians, says:Quote And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Is the word “the” actually in the Hebrew, Keith?You quoted:
Quote while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Titus 2:13 I showed you that “savior” is genetive in Titus 2:13. You don't dispute this, but quote a scholar. Okay, he surely knows alot more about Greek than I do, but it seems to me he is comparing apples to oranges.
2 Peter 1 says, “through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”. Again, the “savior” is genetive, and the Greek reads, “righteousness of our God AND of savior Jesus Christ.”
2 Peter 11 says, “the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” And again, the savior is genetive, so the Greek reads, “the eternal kingdom of our Lord AND of savior Jesus Christ. Your source says:
Quote So in 1 Peter 1:3 we have o qeo kai pathr (the God and Father), one person, not two. 1 Peter 1:3 says:
Quote 3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In this verse, neither God or Father are genetive, so naturally it is speaking of the same person. But Jesus is genetive, so it is correct in saying “the God and Father of Jesus.” Keith, how can you even read a verse like this that so plainly states with no mystery that even now, while Christ is in heaven with all power and authority, Jehovah is his God and Father, and still believe that Jesus is somehow equal? Does God Almighty have a Father? How about a God?
You said:
Quote So since you say the Father is “the only true God”, then that must mean that to you Jesus is not “a true God”, right? Jesus is not “THE only true God” that he prayed to, no.
You said:
Quote It confuses you because you refuse to see the Oneness of the Father and Jesus. They are not the same entity.
You said:
Quote Is Jesus your “god” Mike? Jehovah is my God, Jesus is my Lord.
You said:
Quote Why don’t you and the JWs and ATs (Anti-Trinitarians) confess Jesus as their “god”? For me, it is the same reason I don't call angels or Satan “gods”, even though the word was considered as an acceptable title in biblical times. It seems to me that it would just confuse others.
You said:
Quote See AT Robertson’s notes above and the GSR have never been debunked. Ah, but they have been debunked by the Witnesses. And by the actual Greek words used. You can have all the scholars you want who see things your way, it doesn't matter a bit to me.
You said:
Quote The key is Moses was not a god at all was he? Only to Pharaoh
he was a god.No. To Pharoah he wasn't “a god”, but “the God”.
One flesh is not literal, Keith. Just like the land vomiting up the Israelites was not literal. One flesh means that the two will work together toward the common good of both. They will make decisions together, eat together, read together, sleep together, make love together, etc. All the things they did before as two separate persons. They will now do those things “as one person”. It does NOT, however, mean they are the same entity or even co-equal persons of the same entity.
You said:Quote Was John the Baptist less human than Jesus? No.
You said:
Quote John and Jesus were both human Mike, do you deny that they were equally human? While I don't think any human was or will ever be exactly “equal” to Jesus, and have just said as much to Kerwin in another post, I get what you are saying. And yes, they were both “equally” human. Just like Jesus, although not being God Almighty or “equal to Him, was “equally” a spirit being. That's all the Scripture is saying – Jesus, who was spirit, came as man.
I do find it interesting though, that when it suits you, you are willing to drop the 100% man, 100% god argument. You now void it by saying Jesus and John the Baptist were EQUALLY human. But John the Baptist wasn't also 100% god, so how could they REALLY be equal? No matter, I know I'll see you spouting off about it later.
peace and love,
mikeApril 19, 2010 at 7:52 pm#187795Worshipping JesusParticipantHi Mike
Get ready for this is getting long. We might want to write a book after this is over. We can donate the proceeds to the JWs to get a new Bible!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) I have already explained that if John would have added the definite article to John 1:1c then the reader would perceive that John was saying the Word was the Father! By not using the definite article and using the word “Theos” John is able to convey that Jesus is not the Father yet Jesus was in very nature God (Phil 2:6), or in other words all that God was the Word was. “The Word was God”. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04)
That is your view of what John had in mind. Notice how even your trinitarian mind goes right to the thought, “When John refers to “THE God”, he means “the Father”.
Notice how your mind automatically assumes that the word “Theos” in John 1:1b has a different meaning in John 1:1c. Stop equivocating when you know full well that the word “Theos” is not exclusive to the Father and John uses the word for both the Father and Jesus without any indication that they do not mean the same, and at the very least are qualitatively the same, which would still mean the Word was everything the Father was/is.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Yet there is no actual mention of “the Father”. And if your view is right, John calls the Father “the God”, but not the Word.
Mike, why do you insist on circular reasoning by making the argument that John 1:1c being anarthrous requires the definite article to prove that the word “Theos” in John 1:1b has the same meaning as John 1:1c when in fact it has been shown you that the word Theos in many cases does not have the definite article, and not even once is the word used with the indefinite “a” when referring to the Father or Jesus?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) But in your view, the Word is also equally “the God”
And in your eyes there is another “smaller god” next to the Father which is against Johns view as a strict Monotheist.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Could he not have said, “the Word was with THE God, and the Word was also THE God”, if that is what he meant?
Could he not have said “the only begotten god” or “the son of God” or “the firstborn god”? Yet, you assume that John's meaning for Theos in 1:1b and 1:1c are not equally qualitative! There is not even a slight indication of such in the verse.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) But that isn't really what John believed, was it? John, who quoted Jesus as saying “the Father is greater” while he was on earth.
And John also said these words…Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, “making himself equal with God”. John 5:18
…and John also penned these words…
And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God.
John did not correct Thomas or the Jews. So the evidence shows that John 1:1 lends itself to a Trinitarian view and not an “Arian” view or Polytheistic view.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) The same John who quoted Jesus as saying, “for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God.“, after he was in heaven and been given “all power and authority. The same John who recorded Jesus praying: Quote 1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
First of all your proof text for Rev 3:2 is from the NU text and other translations render it like the YLT…”… for I have not found thy works fulfilled before God.”
Secondly, Trinitarians believe that Jesus is also a man according to the flesh and therefore the Father is his God, but that does not disqualify him being in very nature God according to the Spirit just as the Father is God. No more than your human Father means that you are less human! God is Spirit, Jesus is Spirit, and they are “One”, for we have received “One Spirit”. “…The Word was with God and the Word was God.”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) So it appears your view is correct in assuming that by “THE God”, John was referring to the Father.
True!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04)
Unfortunately for the trinitarians, the Father is “THE ONLY TRUE GOD”.
Unfortunately for the Arians the word “ONLY” True God (Theos) means that there are “NO OTHER TRUE gods (theos)”. Don’t you think that the Apostle John would have known this before he said “The Word was God” (Theos) after he said “the Word was with God” (Theos)?You have failed to adequately prove that Johns view is Polytheistic! As usual the words “Only” True God” does not mean “Only” to you and the JWs, or else Jesus must be a false “theos”. You also have not proved how that the word “theos” in John 1:1c being anarthrous requires the definite article to prove that Jesus the Word is God and not “a god”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) So he used the definite article only once in front of “god”, not to avoid confusing the Word with the Father, but to avoid supporting future trinitarians who think that the Word was actually “THE God”.
Fallacious and weak as it has been shown you that John 1:1c being anarthrous is not proof that the word “Theos” is not equal to the same word “Theos” in John 1:1b.When are you going to concede the point that there does not have to be a definite article or an indefinite article to prove the word “Theos” can refer to the “One True God”!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) As Jack has shown you the word begotten is misleading for Monogenes is not defined as begotten. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) And as I have challenged Jack, I will challenge you. Keep in mind that Strong's agrees that it actually means the “only begotten” Son of God.
Is Strongs all you have because the first definition that he gives is…1) single of its kind, only The KJV translators as well as others must have known that in Luke 7:12 – Luke 8:42 – Luke 9:38 the word “monogenes” was referring to an only child, yet they chose not to translate it “Only begotten” daughter or son, HMMM? Something smells a little fishy here. They are not translated “only begotten” but in fact they are translated “Only” son or daughter or child and in each case they were the “Only” son or daughter or child. The compound definition for “monogenes” does not have the word “begotten” in Strongs definition, does it? Go ahead and look up the words “Mono” and “Genes”. You are building your theology on sand!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) I asked Jack: Does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word? Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten. And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”. Is this information correct?
The root word “ginomai” does not have the words “to generate” in its definition that I can see from Strongs, and out of the 630 times it is translated, not once was it translated “to generate”. So it looks like your JW friends have let you down again. But none of this has anything to do with what happened to the Word during and after the incarnation and it has nothing to do with the Word in John 1:1 does it?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) No one has ever seen God. The only one himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04)
You can use whatever translation you like to prove your bias, but the fact is that the Greek says, “the only begotten god, who is in the bosom position of the Father”.
No Mike the Greek does not say “the only begotten God” that is the translation of two lonely versions called the NASB and the NWT which is misleading. It is more obvious of the bias you and they have seeing that John 1:1 doesn’t say “begotten god” either does it?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise.
Exactly, and what part of that do you not understand. Notice the “one of a kind” is the word “Monogenes” in referring to Isaac. Abraham had more than “One Son” but there was only “One unique Son” of the promise and he wasn’t the “firstborn” was he Mike? Jesus was the “One and only Son of God” who became the firstborn by election and not by birth. Jesus is uniquely the “Only Son” because he is the “Second Adam”. There is no third or fourth Adam.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Jack tried to use this also. But what you both apparently fail to grasp is that it is not the “genes” part of the word that doesn't fit, but the “mono” part. Isaac was indeed “begotten” by Abraham. He wasn't the “ONLY” begotten, but he was “BEGOTTEN” by him.
OK, so are you saying Jesus is not the “only begotten” now? Make up your mind!Mono is part of the word “monogenes”, not begotten!
You are right he was not the “only begotten” son because the word “Genes” does not mean begotten. But he was the “Only unique son” because he was the Son of the promise even though he was not the firstborn! This is the reason why the word “begotten” is misleading Mike.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) So mike says…
“Then it says, “No one has ever understood God, but “a god”, who is at God's side, has explained God.”Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Yes! Now you're getting there! No one has “understood” God at any time. Therefore, how can God explain God?
What god are you serving? You cannot know him unless he reveals or explains himself to you. Why do you think Jesus said he would send you the “Spirit of Truth”, (John 14:17 – Jon 15:26 – 16:13), to guide us and to lead us into all truth.? You cannot know God without the Spirit nor understand him with the carnal mind.For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? “even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God”. 1 Cor 2:11
Here we see the thoughts of God are only understood by the Spirit of God. Yet Jesus has the power to open the scriptures to men. (Luke 24
:13-31) Jesus is the only one to explain God because he is “One” with him (John 1:18 – Matt 11:27 – Luke 10:22). His uniqueness as a Son could only be known by the Father. So in the same way no man could know Jesus unless the Father explained him. If Jesus uniqueness as a “Son of God” was a common term spoken by the Jews then why the special revelation from the Father to Peter that Jesus was the “Son of the living God”? Why did Jesus hush the demons to not tell anyone? None of the anti-trinitarians ever address this point.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) No one has understood God at any time. Someone who is a heavenly spiritual powerful being (a god), is the one who has explained THE GOD that until then, no one had been able to understand.
Pure Polytheism Mike! So God made “a god” to reveal himself? How can an infinite God be fully explained by a finite being or a smaller god as you would have it?All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Matt 11:27 – Luke 10:22
An honest look at this scripture reveals other characteristics of the Father Jesus “equally shares”. Just as no man can know Jesus unless the Father reveals him, no man can know the Father unless Jesus “wills” to reveal him. A close look at Jesus words reveals the following points about himself…
- Jesus possesses all things.
- No man can know the Father unless Jesus chooses to reveal him.
- You cannot have God unless you have the Father and the Son.
Each one of these facts makes Jesus equal to the Father. Does this mean Jesus is above the Father? No, he is not above the Father, but he is not beneath him either, for he is at his right hand! When Jesus spoke these words and words like “My Father and I are one” (John 10:30) or “God was his Father” (John 5:18) or “Whatever the Father does he also does” (John 5:19), the Jews wanted to stone him because to them and the Apostle John Jesus was making himself equal to the Father. A close look at these scriptures reveals exactly that.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) Since you say that Jesus was begotten in the beginning and the term here should be “begotten god” then why didn't the Apostle simply write “The Word was a “begotten god” in John 1:1c? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) John explained exactly who the Word was using those exact words 17 verses later. IMO, calling Jesus the Word was to let us know that he was Jehovah's “mouthpiece”. (I have info on that if you're interested.) Then later, John let's us know that the Word is the same being known also as Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten god, the Son of Man and the Lamb.
First you need to trash the “begotten God” stuff, for that is not what the Greek says and it implies Polytheism or that Jesus is some kind of demi-god and only confuses the readers. Second, you didn’t’ address the point, “if he was the begotten god in the beginning then why didn’t John call him that in John 1:1c? A true translation of who the Word was in John 1:18 would be consistent with John 1:1c “the Word was God”.The NET has it right also…
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known John 1:18. NET
This is true to John 1:1 and remember only God can make God known!
The NET which was translated by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts has this to say about John 1:18.
Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) There is absolutely no other GOD besides Jehovah.
That is exactly right, and the verse also says…“BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”
You are playing with words again. You say “there is only one “theos”, but then you say “there are other “theos”. This is the word games that the JWs have played for years. It’s like wanting your cake and eating it too. You can’t have it both ways.
Paul a strict Monotheistic Jew clearly says “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE”. For even if “THERE ARE SO CALLED GODS”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 1 Cor 8:4, 5
How clear is that Mike? “THERE IS NO GOD (THEOS) BUT ONE” You invoke Paul’s words where he speaks of the “god of this world”. The “god” little “g” of this world is one of the so-called gods or false gods that is only a god to those who are the children of darkness. Satan is a usurper and can appear as an angel of light. To the believer he is not “a god” at all. To the unbeliever he is a god who is false and the father of lies.
“BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) That includes His Son, Jesus Christ.
No Jesus is not a god!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) There are however, other “gods”. The Scriptures prove it, and Jesus is one of them.
Prove it M
ike. Show me where any Apostle or follower of Jesus calls any other being their God but the Father and Jesus. Show me where any so-called god has divine nature other than the Father and Jesus. Moses doesn’t work for you because he was God to Pharaoh who was a Polytheist and worshipped many gods. Nowhere can you find a scripture where the children of Israel referred to Moses as “a god” or God, can you Mike? So he was not a God at all was he?“BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE“.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) So is Satan.
Satan is a false god and one of the so-called gods.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) And Jehovah has always been the ultimate Savior, no matter which tool He used to do the saving: rain, King David, Jesus, angels, etc. So if Jesus is our savior (which he is), isn't the One who SENT him for that purpose the ultimate savior?
More double talk Mike. There is no scripture that says YHWH is the “ultimate Saviour”, as if there are other Saviours beside him. Moses and David and every other Savour, was by proxy only for YHWH. Not so with Jesus because he is “The Saviour” by his own blood and life. His blood is the blood of God, (Acts 20:28) that purchased the Church for himself.while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, “WHO GAVE HIMSELF FOR US” to redeem us from all wickedness and “TO PURIFY FOR HIMSELF A PEOPLE THAT ARE HIS VERY OWN”, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:13, 14
Another reason why contextually the proper reading of these verses is our “Great God and Saviour” is because he purchased us with his own blood for himself! Now following is the reason all other Saviours were simply agents for YHWH and Jesus is in fact “The Only Saviour”.
No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him— the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough— that he should live on forever and not see decay. Pss 49:7-9
Did you catch that Mike? No man could give his life for another, yet Jesus gave his life as a ransom for all. Only the Blood of God and not “a god” could do that!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) How do you and Watchtower explain this contradiction? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) There is no contradiction. Jehovah is “the ONLY TRUE GOD”.
Yet you believe Jesus is a “True God” or is he a false god? It’s hard to know what he is to you and others for you say he is a god yet you do not confess him as your god. You give just lip service to who Jesus really is?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) But do the Scriptures talk of other gods or not, Keith? Is Jehovah called “the God of gods” or not?
Yep, so-called gods or false ones that are gods to men and not Gods at all, for YHWH didn’t make any before him or after him (Isa 43:10), and Paul says “there is “no God but one” (1 Cor 8:4, 5)! How can you say there is “only one true theos” and then turn around and say “there are other true theos”?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Is that also a contradiction?
Not for me and the Trinitarian it isn’t, but for you and all of the Arians it is.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) Again, the NWT translators should have thought these things out before they translated for they contradict Jehovah by saying there is “a god” with the Father in John 1:1c and that Moses was a “God” to Pharaoh. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) I guess Paul contradicted Jehovah when he called Satan “the god of this world”.
No because Paul understood he was a god to the world but to him there was “no God but one” and Satan is a so-called god! Remember he can appear as an angel of light. Is there an OT or NT scripture that says God formed or made any “'elohiym” or “theos”?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) The word used is theos, is it not?
Yes but so is the same word that describes so-called gods and false gods. There are two options for the words“'elohiym” or “theos” in scriptures depending on context, and they are “The One True God YHWH” or false gods. Where is a scripture that speaks of any Hebrew in the OT or NT calling any other their God but YHWH and Jesus?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) And Jehovah wasn't saying to Moses, “You will be 'a god' to them”, was he? He was saying you will represent Me, or “be THE God” to them.
Bingo! To Pharaoh he was God, but Moses was not a God at all was he? Did any of his followers call him God?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Again, the NWT is the one that translates the thought correctly.
Except the NWT should be more consistent and put the big “G” in John 1:1c right?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) Once you realize that the word “Theos” is not exclusive to the Father but also is ascribed to the Son and the Holy Spirit, Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) ..and Satan, and Judges, and in Hebrew angels, Dagon, Baal, etc.
Show me where any of these so-called gods had divine nature and were gods to the Hebrew children! Show me where any of these so-called gods had any divine power of their own and worked miracles!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Except you have to omit the Holy Spirit.
Really? But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to “LIE TO THE HOLY GHOST”, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? “thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God”. Acts 5:3, 4Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, “over the which the HOLY GHOST hath made you overseers”, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28
An amorphous force or power has no mind or will to set men over others does it? This is another one of those heretical doctrines the JWs teach and I cannot wait to get into the subject.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17
You say that the Holy Spirit is not God but the Apostle clearly shows that the Lord is the Spirit!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) Your example is weak for the word “Theos” is not found there. Show me any other example where the translators translated “Theos” when referring to the Father or Jesus with an indefinite article “a” and you might have a case. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) The example is only to show that in the Greek, there weren't indefinite articles. You have to use your brain and the context to know where they are to be inserted. And I'm sorry, but John 1:1 is the only instance when, according to context, it should be added – as far as I know so far.
No proof at all. Just JW conjecture! Follow the NWT if you like, but practically every other credible version translated by 100s of Greek scholars disagrees. And it is still reckless and a blatant confession of Polytheism to place a divine being as “a god” next to God.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) No, and that is the point, none of the Translators added the “a” to John 1:1c either. The translators are smart enough to know that the writers of the scriptures were strict Monotheistic Jews and to add an “a” to the word “Theos” (god) when referring to the Father or Jesus would be a slap in their face especially in John’s case in John 1:1 where he calls the Father God and calls the Word God, which can only mean that they are “One” in their respective nature or ontology! Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) So what you are saying then, is that the NWT adds an indefinite article in only ONE instance that the others don't? All your examples are translated the same in the NWT and the “credible” translations? And yet you slam the translation like it was written by 2 year olds.
It might as well have been written by 2 year olds Mike because not a single translator could read or speak a single Hebrew or Greek sentence. Worse than that they totally abandon their practice in every other time that they translated the word theos in referring to the Father and Jesus without the indefinite article which clearly shows their bias in John 1:1c. Why do you insist that the JWs got it right when there are mountains of evidence against them?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) And John doesn't call the Father God and the Word God. He calls only the Father “THE God”, just as Jesus does.
Still arguing the point that because John 1:1c is anarthrous that “Theos” cannot be “The True God”. Are you going to keep on speaking this circular reasoning even though it has been proven to you that many times the word God is used in referring to the Father or some times it is referring to Jesus without the definite article and that you cannot say that the Father is not God because of this, no more than you can say Jesus is not God!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) “The mighty God”, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6 Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) I don't see the word “the” in the Hebrew, and most translations don't use “the”. The NIV, translated by trinitarians, says: Quote And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Is the word “the” actually in the Hebrew, Keith?
Okay, you have me on that one. I concede! Even so, Jesus is still called “Mighty God” (El Gibbor).What is also interesting Mike is Isaiah in the very next chapter refers to YHWH as “Mighty God” (El Gibbor) without the article.
In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, “TO THE MIGHTY GOD (El Gibbor”) Isaiah 10:20-21
So here we see that YHWH is called “The Mighty God”, though “Mighty God” is anarthrous. Once again this proves that the lack of the indefinite article in no way substantiates that (elohim) or (Theos) is not the “One True God”. But in fact in these verses they lend themselves as Jesus being called YHWH, “The One True God” also.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, Titus 2:13 Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) I showed you that “savior” is genetive in Titus 2:13. You don't dispute this, but quote a scholar. Okay, he surely knows alot more about Greek than I do, but it seems to me he is comparing apples to oranges. 2 Peter 1 says, “through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”. Again, the “savior” is genetive, and the Greek reads, “righteousness of our God AND of savior Jesus Christ.”
2 Peter 11 says, “the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” And again, the savior is genetive, so the Greek reads, “the eternal kingdom of our Lord AND of savior Jesus Christ. Your source says:
Quote So in 1 Peter 1:3 we have o qeo kai pathr (the God and Father), one person, not two.
1 Peter 1:3 says:Quote 3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In this verse, neither God or Father are genetive, so naturally it is speaking of the same person.
Mike, you are good at building straw mans. You try and make a case without using all the facts therefore making your own argument fallacious.You left out that in Titus 2:13 the words God and Saviour are also “genitive”, so thanks Mike for verifying that the words “God” and “Saviour” in Tit 2:13 are speaking of the same person, Jesus Christ. But you also have failed to address the GSR in both verses.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) But Jesus is genetive, so it is correct in saying “the God and Father of Jesus.” Keith, how can you even read a verse like this that so plainly states with no mystery that even now, while Christ is in heaven with all power and authority, Jehovah is his God and Father, and still believe that Jesus is somehow equal? Does God Almighty have a Father? How about a God?
No, the Father didn’t empty himself and come in the likeness of sinful flesh to become the Son of man and the Son of God, did he? The Father because of Jesus being in the flesh is his God and Father but that in no way means Jesus ontology is less according to the Spirit, than you being less human than your earthly Father who you came from. Can we say straw man once again?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) So since you say the Father is “the only true God”, then that must mean that to you Jesus is not “a true God”, right? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Jesus is not “THE only true God” that he prayed to, no.
You are right, Jesus is not the Father but he is also “True God” right?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) It confuses you because you refuse to see the Oneness of the Father and Jesus. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) They are not the same entity.
So you say, Jesus says he and his Father are “One”, and the Apostles call him God and they were not Polytheist!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) Is Jesus your “god” Mike? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Jehovah is my God, Jesus is my Lord.
That creates a real conundrum for you Mike, for you say Jesus is “a god” but he is not your god”. Seems confusing to me?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) Why don’t you and the JWs and ATs (Anti-Trinitarians) confess Jesus as their “god”? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) For me, it is the same reason I don't call angels or Satan “gods”, even though the word was considered as an acceptable title in biblical times. It seems to me that it would just confuse others.
Yet you say that “the Word was a god” in John 1:1c and you think that isn’t confusing to a Monotheist? If he is not your god Mike then he is not “a god” at all is he? Stop with all the double talk!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) See AT Robertson’s notes above and the GSR have never been debunked. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Ah, but they have been debunked by the Witnesses. And by the actual Greek words used. You can have all the scholars you want who see things your way, it doesn't matter a bit to me.
Please show me where they have been debunked, and I will show you where they lie and are deceiving. As far as the Scholars, I come into the court room with the cream of Greek scholarship that totally destroys the so called Greek scholarship of the JWs precious NWT and its translators.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) The key is Moses was not a god at all was he? Only to Pharaoh he was a god. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) No. To Pharaoh he wasn't “a god”, but “the God”.
So Pharaoh considered Moses the “Only True God”? Is there a scripture for that? I thought Pharaoh was a Polytheist? Thank you, to Pharaoh, he was “a god” among many!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) One flesh is not literal, Keith.
So when God says “they two shall be “one flesh” then it was a fairy tale. If God says “Two makes one flesh” then you should believe him though you may not be able to see how that is so.What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is “ONE BODY”? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 1 Cor 6:16
So this is not literal Mike? You just effectively made the word of God of none effect by your words.
Because you do not understand this “Mystery” does not mean to God it is not true!
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and “they two shall be one flesh. THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY: but I speak concerning Christ and the church”. Ehp 5:31, 32
So I guess the Church which is Christ Body is not literal either is it?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) Just like the land vomiting up the Israelites was not literal. One flesh means that the two will work together toward the common good of both. They will make decisions together, eat together, read together, sleep together, make love together, etc. All the things they did before as two separate persons. They will now do those things “as one person”. It does NOT, however, mean they are the same entity or even co-equal persons of the same entity.
So then the Church of Jesus his Body is not “one entity” either is it? And the molecular structure of the Atom is not one entity is it? Just because you say it is so Mike does not make it true. The Bible says we are “one body”, “one church” literally.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) Was John the Baptist less human than Jesus? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) No.
Good! Then Jesus is no less God in nature than the Father.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) John and Jesus were both human Mike, do you deny that they were equally human? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2010,02:04) While I don't think any human was or will ever be exactly “equal” to Jesus, and have just said as much to Kerwin in another post, I get what you are saying. And yes, they were both “equally” human. Just like Jesus, although not being God Almighty or “equal to Him, was “equally” a spirit being. That's all the Scripture is saying – Jesus, who was spirit, came as man.
So then God begat “a god” who’s Spirit was not Equal to God in nature? How does that work. Everything begets after its own kind. A dog has puppies that are equal in every way as a dog than its parents. That’s the flaw that the “begotten” theory has because that which is begotten is some sort of different creature, like a demi-god or something!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2010,16:29) I do find it interesting though, that when it suits you, you are willing to drop the 100% man, 100% god argument. You now void it by saying Jesus and John the Baptist were EQUALLY human. But John the Baptist wasn't also 100% god, so how could they REALLY be equal? No matter, I know I'll see you spouting off about it later.
That’s because you do not understand the “hypostatic” union concept. Jesus took on the likeness of sinful flesh by emptying himself of his divine prerogatives while retaining his nature as God, and was found in fashion as a man. He was in every way fully human after the flesh “Like the first Adam before the fall, yet he is fully God according to the Spirit which is in very nature God. He is the Word/God in the flesh. John 1:1, 14, 18WJ
April 21, 2010 at 3:38 am#188034mikeboll64BlockedHi WJ,
Mike, why do you insist on circular reasoning by making the argument that John 1:1c being anarthrous requires the definite article to prove that the word “Theos” in John 1:1b has the same meaning as John 1:1c when in fact it has been shown you that the word Theos in many cases does not have the definite article, and not even once is the word used with the indefinite “a” when referring to the Father or Jesus?
While “not even once” is a misrepresentation of truth, for the NWT translates John 1:1 as such, I agree we should stop circling. I do want to make it clear that the NWT has every right to translate it as they do. There are no set rules that say the indefinite article can not possibly be used in John 1:1, or in front of the word “theos”. And when you finally come to realize that Jesus is not God, you'll understand why it is better translated this way. Until then, do not fault or belittle the NWT because they translate it differently than your favorite Bibles. If you find they break the rules of Greek grammar on some point we're discussing, fault them for that, okay? Your slams against them because “1000 trinitarians Bibles translate it this way, and they translate it another way” are pointless if the words can in fact be correctly translated as the NWT translates them.
And in your eyes there is another “smaller god” next to the Father which is against Johns view as a strict Monotheist.
There is only one God, but many gods according to Scripture. That's why John referred to him as “the only begotten god”. I guess you could say “smaller god”, if you want. But let's lay out exactly what we think John's view is. IMO, he never thought of Jesus as God, equal to God, or a member of a godhead. And for support, I quote the following things that John heard, said, wrote or prayed:
John 3:16 NIV
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…”John 17:3 NIV
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.Acts 4:30 NIV
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.“Revelation 3:12 NIV
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will ALSO write on him my new name.That is only 4 of many I can quote. Key in these 4 are:
God gave His Son.
The Father is the only true God.
Jesus is still a servant of his God.
Jesus still calls Jehovah “my God.
They do not have the same name.Now you quote 4 that show John thought Jesus to be God Almighty, and we'll go from there. Don't use John 1:1, for it is inconclusive for us. And don't use the two you already posted.
Could he not have said “the only begotten god”
He did. John 1:18 clarifies who the Word is in John 1:1.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, “making himself equal with God”. John 5:18
Did Jesus actually break the Sabbath?
And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God.
Jehovah foretold he would be called god. Thomas fulfilled that. Remember what the defintion of god is. And remember that the caps are not in the Greek. And remember it is the exact same word that Paul called Satan – and Satan is not God.
I know you must have worked hard and long on this post, and I'm not blowing it off. But too much gets lost in the shuffle on these super long posts. I will ALWAYS give an answer to ANY question or point you have. I will never run and hide, because the truth is in the Scriptures. And if your version of the truth prevails, so be it. But we need to hit a point at a time.
So for now, in an effort to understand John 1:1, we are trying to find out if John thought Jesus to be God. Let's stick with that. I listed 4 quotes to your 2. Answer mine and find 2 more of your own, please.
peace and love,
mikeApril 21, 2010 at 4:11 am#188052mikeboll64BlockedOH BOY! I sure hope you post fast. I just finished reading the rest of your bigger than life post, and I have steam coming out of my ears.
You misrepresent the truth as well as your buddy, Jack. I'm praying for patience, for I want the points in your post to be answered one by one – so no one can pick and choose what he wants to answer to.
Hurry Hurry Hurry I can't wait.
mike
April 21, 2010 at 5:44 am#188083Worshipping JesusParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2010,23:38) I know you must have worked hard and long on this post, and I'm not blowing it off. But too much gets lost in the shuffle on these super long posts. I will ALWAYS give an answer to ANY question or point you have. I will never run and hide, because the truth is in the Scriptures. And if your version of the truth prevails, so be it. But we need to hit a point at a time. So for now, in an effort to understand John 1:1, we are trying to find out if John thought Jesus to be God. Let's stick with that. I listed 4 quotes to your 2. Answer mine and find 2 more of your own, please.
MikeOh I see, so you are going to dictate how the debate goes?
I answered your points and it is your turn to answer mine!
WJ
April 21, 2010 at 5:47 am#188085Worshipping JesusParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2010,00:11) I'm praying for patience, for I want the points in your post to be answered one by one – so no one can pick and choose what he wants to answer to. Hurry Hurry Hurry I can't wait.
MikeWhat do you mean hurry, hurry, I answered you and it is your turn.
I have JA to answer, so you need to get with it!
WJ
April 22, 2010 at 1:10 am#188254mikeboll64BlockedHi WJ,
Okay. I will gladly answer everything in your post. (In fact, I'm chomping at the bit to do it) But it is getting to stretched out. Many points get lost in the shuffle. What is wrong with one point at a time? Do you not have anymore Scriptures that you can interpret to mean that John thought Jesus was God? Because I have (rough guess) 50 that show he didn't. Let's actually get to the bottom of something for once. You are the one complaining about the circling. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's find out how we should interpret John 1:1 by finding out what John thought to be the truth.
I will answer to your whole post first if that's what you insist on. In fact, I will start working on it now. But point by point is better. We are after truth, aren't we?
peace and love
mikeApril 22, 2010 at 5:07 pm#188389Worshipping JesusParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2010,21:10) Hi WJ, Okay. I will gladly answer everything in your post. (In fact, I'm chomping at the bit to do it) But it is getting to stretched out. Many points get lost in the shuffle. What is wrong with one point at a time? Do you not have anymore Scriptures that you can interpret to mean that John thought Jesus was God? Because I have (rough guess) 50 that show he didn't. Let's actually get to the bottom of something for once. You are the one complaining about the circling. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's find out how we should interpret John 1:1 by finding out what John thought to be the truth.
I will answer to your whole post first if that's what you insist on. In fact, I will start working on it now. But point by point is better. We are after truth, aren't we?
peace and love
mike
MikeI am beginning to wonder if you are after truth. For Jack and myself have shown you many proofs that you refuse to accept because of your bias.
In fact the proof of what I say is that you cannot even agree that John 1:1c being anarthrous is not proof in itself that the word “Theos” is not at least qualitatively the same.
But lets see what you have to say sir, for I am ready to swallow the bit.
BTW, it will be interesting to see how you place yourself and the non Hebrew and Greek scholars of the NWT against the cream of scholarship brought to us by the teams of 100s of Hebrew and Greek scholars. I can't wait to see your attempt to prove them wrong in their translation of John 1:1.
This outa be good!
WJ
April 23, 2010 at 6:18 am#188533mikeboll64BlockedHi WJ,
I've added the first part to this post to keep it together.
You said:
Quote Mike, why do you insist on circular reasoning by making the argument that John 1:1c being anarthrous requires the definite article to prove that the word “Theos” in John 1:1b has the same meaning as John 1:1c when in fact it has been shown you that the word Theos in many cases does not have the definite article, and not even once is the word used with the indefinite “a” when referring to the Father or Jesus? While “not even once” is a misrepresentation of truth, for the NWT translates John 1:1 as such, I agree we should stop circling. I do want to make it clear that the NWT has every right to translate it as they do. There are no set rules that say the indefinite article can not possibly be used in John 1:1, or in front of the word “theos”. And when you finally come to realize that Jesus is not God, you'll understand why it is better translated this way. Until then, do not fault or belittle the NWT because they translate it differently than your favorite Bibles. If you find they break the rules of Greek grammar on some point we're discussing, fault them for that, okay? Your slams against them because “1000 trinitarians Bibles translate it this way, and they translate it another way” are pointless if the words can in fact be correctly translated as the NWT translates them.
You said:
Quote And in your eyes there is another “smaller god” next to the Father which is against Johns view as a strict Monotheist. There is only one God, but many gods according to Scripture. That's why John referred to him as “the only begotten god”. I guess you could say “smaller god”, if you want. But let's lay out exactly what we think John's view is. IMO, he never thought of Jesus as God, equal to God, or a member of a godhead. And for support, I quote the following things that John heard, said, wrote or prayed:
John 3:16 NIV
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…”John 17:3 NIV
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.Acts 4:30 NIV
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”Revelation 3:12 NIV
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will ALSO write on him my new name.That is only 4 of many I can quote. Key in these 4 are:
God gave His Son.
The Father is the only true God.
Jesus is still a servant of his God.
Jesus still calls Jehovah “my God.
They do not have the same name.Now you quote 4 that show John thought Jesus to be God Almighty, and we'll go from there. Don't use John 1:1, for it is inconclusive for us. And don't use the two you already posted.
You said:
Quote Could he not have said “the only begotten god” He did. John 1:18 clarifies who the Word is in John 1:1.
You quoted:
Quote Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, “making himself equal with God”. John 5:18 Did Jesus actually break the Sabbath?
You quoted:
Quote And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God. Jehovah foretold he would be called god. Thomas fulfilled that. Remember what the definition of god is. And remember that the caps are not in the Greek. And remember it is the exact same word that Paul called Satan – and Satan is not God.
You said:
Quote First of all your proof text for Rev 3:2 is from the NU text and other translations render it like the YLT… ”… for I have not found thy works fulfilled before God.”
The Greek has the word “mou” after God in the text. “Mou” means “of me” or “my”. The Greek says, “…in sight of the God of me”. So “my God” is correct.
You said:
Quote No more than your human Father means that you are less human! God is Spirit, Jesus is Spirit, Exactly. Jesus, who was in the form of God (spirit), came in the form of man (flesh). Pretty simple, really.
You said:
Quote Unfortunately for the Arians the word “ONLY” True God (Theos) means that there are “NO OTHER TRUE gods (theos)”. Keith, you're smarter than this. Do you know the difference between God and god? Satan is TRULY a TRUE god (mighty one). But there is only one true GOD, Jehovah. He is the God of gods. Jesus is a god, therefore Jehovah is his God, just like Scripture teaches.
You said:
Quote You have failed to adequately prove that Johns view is Polytheistic! Polytheistic is the trinitarians version of saying “Liar!” Like when your kid brother truthfully tells Mom you did something bad, and you can't think of a way out of it, so you just yell “Liar!” The Bible teaches many gods, but only one true God. Please don't use the “Liar!” defense anymore. I believe in one God, Jehovah, as John did. But I'm knowledgeable enough to know that the word “theos” does not always apply to Jehovah. You are too, so please stop it.
You said:
Quote 1) single of its kind, only The KJV translators as well as others must have known that in Luke 7:12 – Luke 8:42 – Luke 9:38 the word “monogenes” was referring to an only child, yet they chose not to translate it “Only begotten” daughter or son, HMMM? Something smells a little fishy here. Hmmm? Yes it IS fishy that the KJV translates it other than what the word means. The NWT, on the other hand, translates each one of them as “only begotten”. Pretty smart for 2 year olds.
You said:
Quote The compound definition for “monogenes” does not have the word “begotten” in Strong’s definition, does it? Go ahead and look up the words “Mono” and “Genes”. You are building your theology on sand! I am getting tired of being called a liar. The info I shared came from only 2 sources. Online Bible Study Tools, which says:
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3439
Original Word Word Origin
monogenhvß from (3441) and (1096)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Monogenes 4:737,606
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mon-og-en-ace' AdjectiveDefinition
single of its kind, only
used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of GodDo you see the Strong word #'s above? On OBST, I can only click on the “from” two, not the 3439 for some reason. But the word comes from 3441 and 1096. 3441 says:
Monos None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mon'-os AdjectiveDefinition
alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merelyAnd 1096 says:
Ginomai 1:681,117
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ghin'-om-ahee VerbDefinition
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
of events
to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
of men appearing in public
to be made, finished
of miracles, to be performed, wrought
to become, be madeWhat is 1+1, Keith? Only + To Come Into Existence= Only Begotten. The other source I used was the Watchtower which says:
The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is mo‧no‧ge‧nes′, from mo′nos, meaning “only,” and gi′no‧mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo‧no‧ge‧nes′ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.
Okay? I didn't lie about anything. I only used the info as I copied and pasted it.
You said:
Quote But none of this has anything to do with what happened to the Word during and after the incarnation and it has nothing to do with the Word in John 1:1 does it? If John tells us the Word is actually the “only begotten god”, then you bet it has something to do with what we're talking about. And what John says is that Jesus is the only god to “receive being” or to “become”. That is very important because it means that the Word had a beginning, and we know God didn't. Therefore, the Word is not “THE GOD” as you think. So you and Jack's trinity fact finders can come in and try to say anything they want about “monogenes”, but the fact remains that it means what it means. And I know that stinks for the trinitarians, but it is what it is.
You said:
Quote No Mike the Greek does not say “the only begotten God” that is the translation of two lonely versions called the NASB and the NWT which is misleading. Actually Keith, that's exactly what the Greek says. I have just showed it to you. So once again, the NWT has it right.
You said:
Quote OK, so are you saying Jesus is not the “only begotten” now? Make up your mind! Mono is part of the word “monogenes”, not begotten!
You are right he was not the “only begotten” son because the word “Genes” does not mean begotten. But he was the “Only unique son” because he was the Son of the promise even though he was not the firstborn! This is the reason why the word “begotten” is misleading Mike.In reference to Isaac being Abraham's “only begotten son”, the ginomai part of the word fits, for he was begotten. The confusing part of the Scripture is the mono part, which you agree means “only”. So while Isaac actually WAS BEGOTTEN by Abraham, he is not the ONLY begotten son of Abraham. In other words, don't try to use this instance to say monogenes doesn't mean only begotten. Because your new definition of “only unique son” doesn't answer the riddle of that Scripture. If Isaac is the “only unique son” because of the promise of God, then wouldn't Ishmael also be the “only unique son” because of not being promised by God? What does “unique” mean, Keith?
You said:
Quote Jesus was the “One and only Son of God” who became the firstborn by election and not by birth. Okay, Jack. Show me where Jesus was “elected” as the Son of God. And don't try “he was the first of the 'elect' ones of God. Show me where Jesus was APPOINTED to the “POSITION OR TITLE” of Son of God. This is like déjà vu.
You said:
Quote Jesus is uniquely the “Only Son” because he is the “Second Adam”. Is this gibberish? He's the ONLY because he's the SECOND?
You said:
Quote What god are you serving? You cannot know him unless he reveals or explains himself to you. No, no, no. This is how you twist things. No one can know God except the one that the Son reveals Him to. No one has understood God at ANY TIME, so how can God now let us understand Him? It takes someone BETWEEN man and God to do that. Maybe a….mediator. Or a…..priest. Oh yeah, that's exactly what Jesus is! Why do you not get this? What is a priest, Keith? Is a priest God?
You said:
Quote So in the same way no man could know Jesus unless the Father explained him. Where does it say that? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Don't make stuff up.
You said:
Quote If Jesus uniqueness as a “Son of God” was a common term spoken by the Jews then why the special revelation from the Father to Peter that Jesus was the “Son of the living God”? Why did Jesus hush the demons to not tell anyone? None of the anti-trinitarians ever address this point. What point? Very few people acknowledged that he was the living Son of God. If they had believed, would they have crucified him knowing he was Jehovah's Son? Why do you think it became Paul's first mission to preach that Jesus was in fact the Son of God? And as far as Peter, he was the first of men to actually grasp that Jesus was not a prophet sent by God that called himself a son of God, but the actual living Son of Jehovah God Himself.
You said:
Quote Pure Polytheism Mike! So God made “a god” to reveal himself? How can an infinite God be fully explained by a finite being or a smaller god as you would have it? Think out what you said, man. If Jesus is fully God, then how could HE have explained HIMSELF to finite man?
You said:
Quote All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Matt 11:27 – Luke 10:22 An honest look at this scripture reveals other characteristics of the Father Jesus “equally shares”. Just as no man can know Jesus unless the Father reveals him, no man can know the Father unless Jesus “wills” to reveal him.
I'm sorry. Where is that part again? When did the Father reveal Jesus to us? And why would the Father be able to reveal “Jesus God” to us, but not Himself? And visa versa? In other words, how can equal God explain equal God when no man can understand equal God?
You said:
Quote Each one of these facts makes Jesus equal to the Father. No.
You said:
Quote Does this mean Jesus is above the Father? No, he is not above the Father, You should tell that to Jack.
You said:
Quote but he is not beneath him either, for he is at his right hand! When Jesus spoke these words and words like “My Father and I are one” (John 10:30) or “God was his Father” (John 5:18) or “Whatever the Father does he also does” (John 5:19), the Jews wanted to stone him because to them and the Apostle John Jesus was making himself equal to the Father. A close look at these scriptures reveals exactly that. Never in the history of the world has a “right hand man” been equal to the one he is at the right hand of. In the case of your avatar, Jean Luc's right hand man was #1. Was #1 ever equal to Jean Luc? Was he ever the same exact being as Jean Luc? (Well, maybe if the Borg had them both ) I will deal with the Scriptures one by one in the next segment of this debate.
You said:
Quote First you need to trash the “begotten God” stuff, for that is not what the Greek says It is EXACTLY what the Greek says.
You said:
Quote A true translation of who the Word was in John 1:18 would be consistent with John 1:1c “the Word was God”. And the fact that 1:1 leaves it unanswered, but 1:18 specifies who it is, shouldn't we apply the specific answer back to 1:1? Like when God talked to Moses at the burning bush. LATER we find out His Name, so we apply it back and know it was Jehovah talking from the bush, and we apply it back even farther and know that it was Jehovah who was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even though we didn't know that at the time.
You said:
Quote This is true to John 1:1 and remember only God can make God known! If this was true, why had no one understood God at any time? Why did God have to send someone other than Him to explain Him? You just don't get it. If no one is able to understand God, how in the world can God be the one to explain himself? We can't understand God.
You quoted:
Quote this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. You see? God can't fully reveal God. So if Jesus is the “One” who revealed God, he can't possibly BE God.
You said:
Quote You are playing with words again. You say “there is only one “theos”, but then you say “there are other “theos”. This is the word games that the JWs have played for years. It’s like wanting your cake and eating it too. You can’t have it both ways. No Keith, it is the trinitarians who play the games. You know full well there are other gods in the Bible. And you know we are to worship and serve only one. But you guys like to change the meaning of a Scripture to be able to say, “Jesus must be God because of this Scripture.” For example, you do it a lot with Jude. You like to shove the “only Lord and master” down our throats, but you are completely oblivious to both the beginning and ending of Jude, where he makes it abundantly clear that God and Jesus are two completely different beings, and that only one of them is God. And you don't think about the fact that “only Lord and master” taken literally means Jehovah is no longer our Lord. Yet Jesus knows Him as “the Lord of heaven and earth”, and “my God”.
So Keith, is Jehovah still your Lord, or only Jesus? And don't say, “They are one”, because I will make sure that it comes back to bite you in the butt.
You said:
Quote How clear is that Mike? “THERE IS NO GOD (THEOS) BUT ONE” Crystal clear, Keith. And who does Paul say that “one” God is? The Son? The Holy Spirit? No, the only “one” God is The Father.
You said:
Quote To the believer he is not “a god” at all. To the unbeliever he is a god who is false and the father of lies. Was Paul a “believer”? He's the one who calls Satan “the god of this age”. Do you think he meant God? Of course not. Just like John did not mean God in 1:1. And do you think that Jehovah, who “tells the end from the beginning” and inspired all the writers of Scripture knew that Paul would call Satan a god before he ever did it? Of course. Yet he still said, “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE” . Hmmm…. Could it be that He meant no True God Almighty, Host of the Heavens, Jehovah the Most High God? Or are you insistent that He meant no “mighty one” whatsoever?
You said:
Quote No Jesus is not a god! Webster’s defines god as, “any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature”.
Is Satan a god? Is Jesus?
You said:
Quote Moses doesn’t work for you because he was God to Pharaoh What?!? Did you say God? Just like the NWT? You're coming along just fine, Keith.
You said:
Quote Not so with Jesus because he is “The Saviour” by his own blood and life. His blood is the blood of God, (Acts 20:28) that purchased the Church for himself. Yes, because it was the will of his Father and God. And Acts 20:28 literally says, “with the blood of his own.”
The Greek words τοῦ ἰδίου (tou i‧di′ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” – Watchtower
You said:
Quote Only the Blood of God and not “a god” could do that! I must have missed that part in the Scriptures. Can you show me where it is?
You said:
Quote Yet you believe Jesus is a “True God” or is he a false god? It’s hard to know what he is to you and others for you say he is a god yet you do not confess him as your god. You give just lip service to who Jesus really is? Jesus is a god in the definition from Webster's I gave above. If you ask again, I will answer, “Webster's”. That way I don't have to waste time saying the same thing over and over. That's the new “code”, okay?
You said:
Quote How can you say there is “only one true theos” and then turn around and say “there are other true theos”? I know this isn't that hard for you – you just like yanking my chain. So here's another definition of God from Dictionary.com: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. “D.com” is codeword #2. So the “only one true theos=D.com. The other true theos=Webster's. Got it? Do you understand the code?
You said:
Quote No because Paul understood he was a god to the world but to him there was “no God but one” and Satan is a so-called god! See why I made the code? You ask the same thing 100 different ways expecting a different answer. “No God but one=d.com. Satan=Webster's.
You said:
Quote There are two options for the words“'elohiym” or “theos” in scriptures depending on context, and they are “The One True God YHWH” or false gods. Where is a scripture that speaks of any Hebrew in the OT or NT calling any other their God but YHWH and Jesus? Where is one where Jesus is called “the only true God YHWH”?
You said:
Quote Bingo! To Pharaoh he was God, but Moses was not a God at all was he? Did any of his followers call him God? I am seriously glad that you are using the NWT's translation and understanding that Moses would be “God” to Pharaoh, not “a god”, because that's the way it should be understood. Just wait; there will be more things you learn from the NWT before I'm done with you.
And no, Moses was not God at all. And none of Jesus' followers thought he was God, either. I will prove that to you in the next segment. We will do a Scripture vs. Scripture comparison of the writings of John to find out who he thought Jesus was. If you're so sure of your beliefs, you should be happy for the chance to prove your trinity, so don't balk at this.
You said:
Quote Except the NWT should be more consistent and put the big “G” in John 1:1c right? Jesus wasn't sent to be God to us. He was sent as who he was – the Son of God. The one who is not God, but has explained Him to us.
You said:
Quote Show me where any of these so-called gods had divine nature and were gods to the Hebrew children! Show me where any of these so-called gods had any divine power of their own and worked miracles! Do you know what divine means? D.com says: 1.of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
6.Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely: He has the most divine tenor voice.
7.being a god; being God: a divine person.
8.of superhuman or surpassing excellence: Beauty is divine.Satan is these things, Keith. You can't take away from what he is just because you don't like him. He is one of the most powerful beings ever created. He and his army are so powerful, in fact, that God has to break him down for Jesus and his army to be able to defeat him. At least that's how I understand it. And many of the Hebrew children worshipped him. The ones who practiced magic, fortune telling, raising the spirits of the dead, etc. Don't you think Baal is one of Satan's army? He's not one of Jesus'. And if Jesus worked a miracle by expelling the demons, wasn't it a miracle that they were in the humans in the first place? They are spirit creatures so much more intelligent and powerful than us, it isn't even funny. They could squash us like a bug, if God permitted.
You said:
Quote Really? But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to “LIE TO THE HOLY GHOST”, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? “thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God”. Acts 5:3, 4 Yes, really. Read a little farther down the page, and it becomes clear what Paul meant. Verse 9 says, “9Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
Context, Keith. By lying to the Spirit OF God, wouldn't you in that same instant, be lying to God Himself? If the Spirit IS God, then verse 9 says, “How could you agree to test the God of God?” Is that what is meant? Why do you think Jesus said blasphemy against him would be forgiven, but not against the Holy Spirit? Because that would be the same as blasphemy against God Himself.
You just finish your debate with JA on the spirit. You and I have got other things going right now.
You said:
Quote An amorphous force or power has no mind or will to set men over others does it? This is another one of those heretical doctrines the JWs teach and I cannot wait to get into the subject. Again it is just the wording that throws you off. We know from Scripture that the Spirit speaks only what God tells it to. The Holy Spirit didn't appoint anyone. God appointed and they knew this by the Spirit OF God. Like Jesus, it is a mediator between God and us. It is OF God, not God. No more on the Spirit until JA has his chance at you.
You said:
Quote No proof at all. Just JW conjecture! Follow the NWT if you like, but practically every other credible version translated by 100s of Greek scholars disagrees. The same scholars that say Moses was “a god” to Pharaoh? But you now seem to know and use the better translation.
You said:
Quote It might as well have been written by 2 year olds Mike because not a single translator could read or speak a single Hebrew or Greek sentence. I've just overheard this past weekend that the NWT translators maintain anonymity. I can look into these claims when I get time. For now, I'll just let two things work themselves out. 1. Slowly, you'll see how, when the NWT translates differently from the others, the NWT is the one who gets it right. You see that with Moses already. 2. If you seriously believe that someone could translate the whole Bible without speaking the languages, you are very gullible. So I'll let you rant and rave, because the more you do, the more crow you will eat when I reveal the truth to you.
You said:
Quote Worse than that they totally abandon their practice in every other time that they translated the word theos in referring to the Father and Jesus without the indefinite article which clearly shows their bias in John 1:1c. Why do you insist that the JWs got it right when there are mountains of evidence against them? It's simple, Keith. Most of the other translations are done by groups of trinitarians. The NIV scholars had to sign off on being a trinitarian before they were allowed on the project. If the rest of Scripture teaches Jesus as a subordinate of God, then why in the world would John 1:1 imply that he WAS God? That's why we're going to see what John thought about Jesus before I move on with any more of this debate.
You said:
Quote Okay, you have me on that one. I concede! Even so, Jesus is still called “Mighty God” (El Gibbor). Chalk another point up for the NWT verses the trinitarian translation you quoted. And now you're making some headway. All you have to do now is find the Scripture where he is called “Almighty God”.
You said:
Quote What is also interesting Mike is Isaiah in the very next chapter refers to YHWH as “Mighty God” (El Gibbor) without the article. Remember my square verses rectangle post? The Almighty God Jehovah CAN be called “Mighty God”. But the mighty god Jesus CANNOT be called “Almighty God”. Because “almighty” basically means “the most mighty”. And only one can be “the mightiest”. Otherwise, it cancels out the meaning of “almighty”.
You said:
Quote Mike, you ar
e good at building straw mans. You try and make a case without using all the facts therefore making your own argument fallacious.You left out that in Titus 2:13 the words God and Saviour are also “genitive”, so thanks Mike for verifying that the words “God” and “Saviour” in Tit 2:13 are speaking of the same person, Jesus Christ. But you also have failed to address the GSR in both verses.
Okay. Then let's burn down this straw man that apparently I've made.
In Titus 2:13, “God” is not genitive. But the Greek word for “of the” is present before the “God”. So it means “of the great God”. This much we can agree on. And as I said while building my straw man, the word “savior” is genitive. So is the word “Christ”. What you fail to see is that the word for “and” is placed between “God” and “of Savior”. So it literally reads: “of the great God AND of Savior of Christ”. It's the “AND” that sets God apart from “the savior Christ Jesus. Like I said, two people are talked about in this Scripture, Keith. One is our great God, AND the other is the savior Jesus Christ. Chalk one more up for the NWT verses the trinitarians translations. I wonder how these non Greek speaking 2 year olds pulled this off? BTW, I'm reading this directly out of the NWT Greek Interlinear. Someone over there must have known Greek.
You said:
Quote No, the Father didn’t empty himself and come in the likeness of sinful flesh to become the Son of man and the Son of God, did he? The Father because of Jesus being in the flesh is his God and Father but that in no way means Jesus ontology is less according to the Spirit, than you being less human than your earthly Father who you came from. Can we say straw man once again? Sure, let's burn down another one of “my” straw men. First, the person who already was the only begotten Son of God in heaven did his God's will and was SENT by his God to earth. Second, the Father is not only Jesus' God while he was flesh. Jehovah is STILL his God according to Scripture. And third, I am as much human as my father, just as Jesus was (and is again) as much of a spirit being as his Father. But I am not my father, Bob, just as Jesus is not his Father, Jehovah.
You said:
Quote You are right, Jesus is not the Father but he is also “True God” right? Jesus=Webster's.
You said:
Quote So you say, Jesus says he and his Father are “One”, and the Apostles call him God and they were not Polytheist! John called him =Webster's. Just as Paul called Satan. Just as the Psalm that Paul quoted was calling a man god originally. Was the one whom the Psalm was originally written about God Almighty? And Jesus also says we will be one with them. Will we be God Almighty?
You said:
Quote That creates a real conundrum for you Mike, for you say Jesus is “a god” but he is not your god”. Seems confusing to me? Hopefully the code will make it less confusing for you. Jesus=Webster's.
You said:
Quote Yet you say that “the Word was a god” in John 1:1c and you think that isn’t confusing to a Monotheist? If he is not your god Mike then he is not “a god” at all is he? Stop with all the double talk! Jesus=Webster's.
You said:
Quote As far as the Scholars, I come into the court room with the cream of Greek scholarship that totally destroys the so called Greek scholarship of the JWs precious NWT and its translators. Yet, you use the NWT's version of Moses. And whether you're honest enough to admit it or not, the NWT is correct on Titus. And the NWT was correct about “monogenes”. And Rev “my God”. So far, so much for your “cream”.
You said:
Quote So when God says “they two shall be “one flesh” then it was a fairy tale. If God says “Two makes one flesh” then you should believe him though you may not be able to see how that is so. I don't know, Keith. Are you and your wife like conjoined twins? Are you like “The Fly”? Or are you still two separate people?
You said:
Quote So I guess the Church which is Christ Body is not literal either is it? Christ has a “heavenly spirit body” now, according to Paul. Is the church on earth a “heavenly spirit body”? Are you literally Christ's hands and feet? Are you, like a big toe? Did the land actually vomit out the Canaanites? Did God actually hook a ring in ?'s (I don't remember and I'm too tired to search) nose and lead him? Was it a literal ring? Was it visible to those around him? Do you want me to search some more? There are literally hundreds of metaphors in the Bible.
You said:
Quote Good! Then Jesus is no less God in nature than the Father. No. Jesus is no less a spirit creature than God.
You said:
Quote So then God begat “a god” who’s Spirit was not Equal to God in nature? How does that work. Everything begets after its own kind. A dog has puppies that are equal in every way as a dog than its parents. That’s the flaw that the “begotten” theory has because that which is begotten is some sort of different creature, like a demi-god or something! Imagine if you were 25 and strong. You begat a son who was 12 and not as strong. Now imagine you never age and never gain or lose any strength. A million years from now, you will still be more powerful than you perpetually 12 year old son. You can not compare heavenly things to worldly things, Keith. It's apples and oranges. God created His Son who was not as strong or as wise as Him. They never age. The situation remains the same forever. He also created many other spiritual beings, why don't you argue that they are G
od too? They are also created in God's spiritual form.You said:
Quote That’s because you do not understand the “hypostatic” union concept. Jesus took on the likeness of sinful flesh by emptying himself of his divine prerogatives while retaining his nature as God, and was found in fashion as a man. He was in every way fully human after the flesh “Like the first Adam before the fall, yet he is fully God according to the Spirit which is in very nature God. He is the Word/God in the flesh. John 1:1, 14, 18 Is this understandable English of gibberish? Jesus is not God.
That's it for the million word posts for me. It's too time consuming and too much will go unanswered. By the time I read your response to this, I will have forgotten all the points I made. So if you skip some, I'll never know. I want to do this debate, but these long post leave too much “run and hide” room. Also too much “diversion tactics” room. From now on, I will only answer one segment at a time. So don't even bother answering this whole post – I won't respond. You and thinker just today have accused me of not answering your questions. I will answer every single one. But one at a time. Right now, I will expect two more Scriptures from John that prove he thought Jesus was God.
peace and love,
mikeps So far, the NWT has it right on “my God”, “great God AND Savior Christ Jesus”, “you will be God to Pharaoh”, “Mighty God” and “begotten” . You might want to reconsider their translation of John 1:1.
April 23, 2010 at 11:12 pm#188567Worshipping JesusParticipantHi Mike
Okay, I am going to address your points in parts and you can wait if you like as I did.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Mike, why do you insist on circular reasoning by making the argument that John 1:1c being anarthrous requires the definite article to prove that the word “Theos” in John 1:1b has the same meaning as John 1:1c when in fact it has been shown you that the word Theos in many cases does not have the definite article, and not even once is the word used with the indefinite “a” when referring to the Father or Jesus? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) While “not even once” is a misrepresentation of truth…
Only from your view point. I do not consider the NWT a valid translation but it is more of a paraphrase and we will get into that and I will show you why later.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) …for the NWT translates John 1:1 as such, I agree we should stop circling.
No Mike it is not we should stop the circular reasoning, it is you. You are the one saying that John 1:1c being anarthrous is proof that the Word is not God because it doesn’t have the definite article.. You are the one saying that the Greek word ‘theos’ in John 1:1c is not at least qualitatively the same as John 1:1b.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) I do want to make it clear that the NWT has every right to translate it as they do.
They can do what they want and you can follow them, but the NWT has corrupted the scriptures in many cases and John 1:1 is one of the most obvious.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) There are no set rules that say the indefinite article can not possibly be used in John 1:1, or in front of the word “theos”.
Before you speak you should know what it is you are talking about. There are grammatical rules in Greek translation that prove that the correct translation of John 1:1c is what 100s of Greek scholars held to in the translations, and all of them rendered John 1:1 the same. The following is a small example of the teams of translators that translated the many translations on BGW and BLB.New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.
King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.
New King James Version – 119 scholars.
New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars
Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars
English Standard Version – 100+ scholarsThe English versions above were translated by many teams of the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars, and there are many more that I didn't list who all translate John 1:1 the same
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) And when you finally come to realize that Jesus is not God, you'll understand why it is better translated this way.
Dream on. I know in whom I have believed!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) …then, do not fault or belittle the NWT because they translate it differently than your favorite Bibles.
I do not have to belittle them for they belittle themselves. I mean come on, they give Moses a big ‘G’ and Jesus a little ‘g’ for god, here they even belittle Jesus.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) If you find they break the rules of Greek grammar on some point we're discussing, fault them for that, okay? Your slams against them because “1000 trinitarians Bibles translate it this way, and they translate it another way” are pointless if the words can in fact be correctly translated as the NWT translates them.
I know this is disappointing for you because you put so much faith in Jesus being ‘a god’ but not your god.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) And in your eyes there is another “smaller god” next to the Father which is against Johns view as a strict Monotheist. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) There is only one God, but many gods according to Scripture.
So you say, but the scriptures disagree with you.YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE“. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT
What part of “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE” don’t you understand Mike?
It says “Before him and after him none were formed”.
Paul said there is “no God but one” and says all others are so-called gods. These gods are manmade and seen as gods only by men. You still avoid the point that if they were truly gods then where are there any followers of YHWH or Jesus calling them their God. If they didn’t then that means they were false and merely gods made by men.
If that isn’t enough for you then how about these scriptures…
“This is what the Lord says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I a
m the last; “APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. “IS THERE ANY GOD BESIDES ME”? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” Isa 44:6-8I am the Lord, and there is no other; “APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD”. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know “THERE IS NONE BESIDES ME. I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER”. Isa 45:5, 6
Remember the former things, those of long ago; “I am God, and **THERE IS NO OTHER**; I am God, and there is none like me”. Isa 46:9
“See now that I myself am He! “THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME”. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. Deut 32:39
A summary of these scriptures say…
- “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED” Isa 43:10
- AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE” Isa 43:10
- “APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD Isa 44:6-8
- “IS THERE ANY GOD BESIDES ME” Isa 44:6-8
- “APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD” Isa 45:5
- “THERE IS NONE BESIDES ME. I AM THE LORD” Isa 45:6
- “THERE IS NO OTHER” Isa 45:6
- “I am God, and there is no other” Isa 46:9
- “I am God, and there is none like me” Isa 46:9
- “THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME” Deut 32:39
How can you read these scriptures and say there are other “gods” Mike? Do you know of any gods today besides Jesus that you say is god yet he is not your god?
Here is the definition of Polytheism …
Polytheism
Definition: belief in several deities: the worship of “or belief in more than one deity“, especially several deities (Encarta)
The worship of or “belief in more than one god“. (American Heritage Dictionary)
“belief in” or worship of more than one god (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary)
You do believe Jesus is 'a god', right?
How about YHWHs command not to mention the name of other gods…
“Be careful to do everything I have said to you. “DO NOT INVOKE THE NAMES OF OTHER GODS; DO NOT LET THEM BE HEARD ON YOUR LIPS”. Exod 23:13
Yet you pray to the Father in the name of “a god”, how do you explain this Mike?
WJ
April 24, 2010 at 4:26 pm#188618mikeboll64BlockedQuote (WorshippingJesus @ April 24 2010,11:12) “Be careful to do everything I have said to you. “DO NOT INVOKE THE NAMES OF OTHER GODS; DO NOT LET THEM BE HEARD ON YOUR LIPS”. Exod 23:13 Yet you pray to the Father in the name of “a god”, how do you explain this Mike?
Hi WJ,Everything you just posted all comes down to this last Scripture. What do you think “other gods” means? Is is not Jehovah acknowledging the existence of “other gods”? Did He Himself not say about men, “you are gods”? The word “god” has more than one meaning, Keith, and you know it. This whole post of yours is game playing.
Look at what the CEV says in a footnote at Judges 13:22,
angel: the Hebrew has “god”, which can be used of God or of other supernatural beings So one of the “100+ scholar” translations you posted is the one that explains this to us. So this proves that in OT times, “god” had different meanings. And “the god of this age” proves that in NT times, “god” had different meanings. And any dictionary you use today proves that in our time, “god” has different meanings.
Why can you understand that it merely means “a mighty one” when God uses it of men, or when Paul uses it of Satan, or when Manoah uses it of an angel, but when it is used of Jesus, you insist it has to mean “God”?
You throw out the word “polytheist” so eagerly. Yet you forget so easily that your idea of a triad god comes not from Hebrew culture or the Scriptures, but from pagan culture.
And who do you pray to? You pray to your #1 God through the name of your #2 God, and ask him to send you #3 God. We are taught that no one can come to God except through His Son, Jesus. If Jesus is that God, how does this make sense? You pray to God through God, when it clearly states we cannot come directly to God. That's why Jesus is the mediator BETWEEN God and man. He is the Priest BETWEEN God and man. God cannot be the “go between” BETWEEN God and man.
John 1:1 says in the Greek language,
“…the word was with the god, and the word was god.” The fact that one was WITH the other and only one has the definite article “the” should be enough to distinguish separate beings. But because your approach it with a false pre-conceived notion, you cannot see this. And even when, 17 verses later, John clearly says the the Word is the “only begotten god”, the trinitarians must now magically change the meaning of “monogenes”. But even using the magical new trinitarian definition “the only one after God's kind”, it still implies that Jesus came AFTER.
Think about this Keith: Is God ever called the “monogenes” of Jesus? Is Jehovah the “only one after Jesus' kind”?
But all of this is useless if we don't discover what John really meant in 1:1. And the best way to do that is to find out, to the extent that the data allows, whether John thought that Jesus actually was God. So what are you waiting for? I've extended a challenge to you to show from Scripture that John thought what you think he thought.
peace and love,
mikeApril 24, 2010 at 8:46 pm#188634Worshipping JesusParticipantHi Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) That's why John referred to him as “the only begotten god”. I guess you could say “smaller god”, if you want.
No those are not my words but yours. To you Jesus is a smaller god yet he is not your god.
So whose god is he Mike? Gods have followings and those who believe in them as ‘a god’ right? Gods are worshipped and honored as being supernatural beings with supernatural power, right? Yet what we find in the Hebrew scriptures these “so –called” gods that are made by men and honored and worshipped yet we do not see any of these heathen gods with any supernatural power do we?Please give me one example Mike where there is a scripture that shows a follower of YHWH or Jesus giving any credence to “a god” other than the Father and Jesus. Surely you have one example of this in 66 books of the Bible.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) But let's lay out exactly what we think John's view is. IMO, he never thought of Jesus as God, equal to God, or a member of a godhead. And for support, I quote the following things that John heard, said, wrote or prayed: John 3:16 NIV
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…”
Nope doesn’t say Jesus is not God. Jesus also said that he had the power to lay his own life down and to raise himself from the dead. John 10:17, 18 – John 2:19Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) John 17:3 NIV
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Nope doesn’t say Jesus is not God but in fact implies being equal to God because knowing him and the Father is a prerequisite to eternal life. Not only that, but the same John calls him God in John 1:1 – 20:28 and 1 John 5:20Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Acts 4:30 NIV
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
The Greek word “pais” for “servant” is also translated as “Son” in Matt 21:15 – John 4:51 – Acts 3:11 – Acts 3:26 so it is inconclusive. Seeing that Jesus is no longer the “servant Messiah” but in fact is running the show now, so it should be translated, Son.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Revelation 3:12 NIV
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will ALSO write on him my new name.
Jesus already has the name of the Father and in fact both he and the Father share many names and titles so he has a new name, what of it?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) That is only 4 of many I can quote. Key in these 4 are: God gave His Son.
And Jesus willingly came and gave his own life! Remember a man can not give his life for a ransom for another in Hebrew law could he?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) The Father is the only true God.
And Jesus is the “only true “Theos”, he is not false is he? 1 John 5:20Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Jesus is still a servant of his God.
Ambiguous! For Jesus has all authority and power!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Jesus still calls Jehovah “my God
Yes and Jesus is also still a man after the flesh but he is God according to the Spirit, Son of God and Son of man, as it has been explained to you already..Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) They do not have the same name.
So, you and your Father have a different name, does that mean that you are not human like your Father? What does this prove? Trinitarians believe the Father and Jesus are two different persons. I see no problem for us here.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Now you quote 4 that show John thought Jesus to be God Almighty, and we'll go from there. Don't use John 1:1, for it is inconclusive for us. And don't use the two you already posted.
To you John 1:1 is inconclusive. But I haven’t changed the text like you and the JWs.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Could he not have said “the only begotten god” Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) He did. John 1:18 clarifies who the Word is in John 1:1.
That’s you opinion Mike. John 1:18 according to context is best understood as the NET and others render it like the NLT, NIV, ESV, CEV, NCV, NIRV, TNIV, just to mention a few.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had b
roken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, “making himself equal with God”. John 5:18Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Did Jesus actually break the Sabbath?
Isn’t that what John just said?This is another reason they wanted to stone him. In the same context, the Jews understood his claim that he could work the works of God on the Sabbath. Here is some information on this from the NET…
“My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18, noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment (Exod 20:11) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11, denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. a.d. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. “This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17. He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. THE SABBATH PRIVILEGE WAS PECULIAR TO GOD, AND NO ONE WAS EQUAL TO GOD. IN CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO WORK EVEN AS HIS FATHER WORKED, JESUS WAS CLAIMING A DIVINE PREROGATIVE. HE WAS LITERALLY MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection.” NET
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Jehovah foretold he would be called god. Thomas fulfilled that.
Yet you do not call him your Lord and God!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Remember what the definition of god is.
You mean the “Only True God” and “False Gods”, that is all the scriptures teach.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) And remember that the caps are not in the Greek.
Yet you put the caps wherever it suits you though you know nothing about translating the Hebrew or Greek, right?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) And remember it is the exact same word that Paul called Satan – and Satan is not God.
That’s because satan is not a god at all but simply a so-called god as Paul puts it. He definitely is not a true god is he Mike, Jesus said there is no truth in him and that he was a liar from the beginning and in fact is the father of lies. What kind of god is that mike?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) First of all your proof text for Rev 3:2 is from the NU text and other translations render it like the YLT… ”… for I have not found thy works fulfilled before God.”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) The Greek has the word “mou” after God in the text. “Mou” means “of me” or “my”. The Greek says, “…in sight of the God of me”. So “my God” is correct.
Inconclusive, for the older text doesn’t read “my God”. Makes no difference anyway for it proves nothing against the Deity or Nature of Jesus.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) No more than your human Father means that you are less human! God is Spirit, Jesus is Spirit, Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Exactly. Jesus, who was in the form of God (spirit), came in the form of man (flesh). Pretty simple, really.
Wrong, was Jesus flesh a different type of flesh? Was Jesus Spirit a different type of Spirit? If you are going to use the “Begat” after its own kind principle then you need to hold to it.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Unfortunately for the Arians the word “ONLY” True God (Theos) means that there are “NO OTHER TRUE gods (theos)”. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Keith, you're smarter than this. Do you know the difference between God and god?
Yep, the One is “True” and the others are false, there are no in-betweens.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Satan is TRULY a TRUE god (mighty one). But there is only one true GOD, Jehovah. He is the God of gods. Jesus is a god, therefore Jehovah is his God, just like Scripture teaches.
Man, how far are you going to go with this? You say “Satan is TRULY a TRUE god (mighty one). Jesus said “satan is the father of lies and scriptures teach that he can appear to be as an angel of light. How do you see him as a “TRUE god”. Then you border blasphemy by putting Jesus in the same class as satan. Here is what YHWH has to say about calling satan a “TRUE god”.“Be careful to do everything I have said to you. “DO NOT INVOKE THE NAMES OF OTHER GODS; DO NOT LET THEM BE HEARD ON YOUR LIPS”. Exod 23:13
To invoke also means to “incite authority” too. All the so-called gods of the Bible are not to be regarded as gods to the believer. Why because they are only gods to men which are not “TRUE gods” at all are they Mike? Does satan have any power over Jesus followers?
Here is what the Bible says about satan and his end…
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: (or I will be like God) I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (or I will be a god) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isa 14:12-14
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) You have failed to adequately prove that Johns view is Polytheistic! Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Polytheistic is the trinitarians version of saying “Liar!”
I can see how its definition would make you feel like you are lying against the scriptures.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Like when your kid brother truthfully tells Mom you did something bad, and you can't think of a way out of it, so you just yell “Liar!”
It could be that kid brother is telling a lie.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) The Bible teaches many gods, but only one true God.
This is a lie! The Bible teaches no such thing.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Please don't use the “Liar!” defense anymore. I believe in one God, Jehovah, as John did.
You believe in one God “theos” but you believe in other gods “Theos”. Remember there are no caps in the Greek.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) But I'm knowledgeable enough to know that the word “theos” does not always apply to Jehovah. You are too, so please stop it.
I agree there is “Only One True God” and all other gods are false and not “TRUE gods” at all. YHWH said there were none formed before him or after him and Paul said there is “NO GOD “theos” but one. So stop with all the double talk. If there is “ONLY ONE GOD (theos)” then there are no others period.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) 1) single of its kind, only The KJV translators as well as others must have known that in Luke 7:12 – Luke 8:42 – Luke 9:38 the word “monogenes” was referring to an only child, yet they chose not to translate it “Only begotten” daughter or son, HMMM? Something smells a little fishy here. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Hmmm? Yes it IS fishy that the KJV translates it other than what the word means. The NWT, on the other hand, translates each one of them as “only begotten”. Pretty smart for 2 year olds.
Not so fast, the NWT is the only translation that does, even the NASB abandons the “begotten” translation though like the NWT they are the only two versions which translate Monogenes as begotten in John 1:18.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) The compound definition for “monogenes” does not have the word “begotten” in Strong’s definition, does it? Go ahead and look up the words “Mono” and “Genes”. You are building your theology on sand! Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) I am getting tired of being called a liar. The info I shared came from only 2 sources. Online Bible Study Tools, which says:
Then you should tell the truth Mike. Read what I said. I said the “COMPOUND” word “monogenes” does not have the word begotten in “Mono and genes”, look them up individually. And again the first definition by Strongs for monogenes is “single of its kind, only”, so believe like you want and get all upset if you want, but the definition of the two words “Mono and Genes” do not have the word “begotten”. Sinking sand!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3439
Original Word Word Origin
monogenhvß from (3441) and (1096)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Monogenes 4:737,606
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mon-og-en-ace' AdjectiveDefinition
single of its kind, only
used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of GodDo you see the Strong word #'s above? On OBST, I can only click on the “from” two, not the 3439 for some reason. But the word comes from 3441 and 1096. 3441 says:
Monos None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mon'-os AdjectiveDefinition
alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merelyAnd 1096 says:
Ginomai 1:681,117
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ghin'-om-ahee VerbDefinition
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
of events
to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
of men appearing in public
to be made, finished
of miracles, to be performed, wrought
to become, be madeWhat is 1+1, Keith? Only + To Come Into Existence= Only Begotten.
The word begotten is not in the definitions is it Mike? Your formula is incorrect because “to come into existence” does not mean begotten, or else everything that was brought into existence would be begotten wouldn’t it?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) The other source I used was the Watchtower which says: The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is mo‧no‧ge‧nes′, from mo′nos, meaning “only,” and ginomai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo‧no‧ge‧nes′ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.
Okay? I didn't lie about anything. I only used the info as I copied and pasted it.
I never said you were lying, I said your source was incorrect and misleading for the word “ginomai” does not mean “to generate” and it was not once translated that way. So Watchtower is being deceptive aren’t they? You put to much trust in their material. You will find out what kind of deceivers and liars they are.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) But none of this has anything to do with what happened to the Word during and after the incarnation and it has nothing to do with the Word in John 1:1 does it? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) If John tells us the Word is actually the “only begotten god”, then you bet it has something to do with what we're talking about. And what John says is that Jesus is the only god to “receive being” or to “become”. That is very important because it means that the Word had a beginning, and we know God didn't. Therefore, the Word is not “THE GOD” as you think.
Wake up Mike and get your head out of the sand. You are falling apart man. Let me show you how your argument is fallacious.John 1:1 does not mention the words “begotten son” or “begotten god” at all and in fact the Word was not begotten until after his incarnation, that is when he “came into existence” in human form or flesh. Follow the chronology of John’s prologue Mike.
The Word became (ginomai) flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,* who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.. John 1:14
So when did Jesus “come into existence” in the form of man or flesh? Phil 2:6-8 uses the same word (ginomai) here…
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature* of a servant, being “made (ginomai)” in human likeness.
Then after he has come in the flesh and is found in fashion as a man, John says…
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18
Even if you say that “begotten god” is the correct translation, Johns perspective of Jesus being the begotten is after his incarnation according to John 1:14, and the fact that John says “God the One and only who is at the Fathers side” is proof that Jesus didn’t become “begotten” as you say until after he came in the flesh. There is no indication in Johns prologue at all that Jesus “came into existence” before he came in the flesh.
So your argument is a red herring and a fallacy!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) So you and Jack's trinity fact finders can come in and try to say anything they want about “monogenes”, but the fact remains that it means what it means. And I know that stinks for the trinitarians, but it is what it is.
No it stinks for you because it does not prove Jesus came into existence before John 1:14 and 18. The term “monogenes” was never used of Jesus before his incarnation, was it Jack? If you think so then please present scriptural proof! It stinks for you that you side with the lonely NWT and the NASB.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) No Mike the Greek does not say “the only begotten God” that is the translation of two lonely versions called the NASB and the NWT which is misleading. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Actually Keith, that's exactly what the Greek says. I have just showed it to you. So once again, the NWT has it right.
You have shown nothing of any substance at all to rebut the hundreds of Greek scholars who contradict you and the NWT and NASB.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) OK, so are you saying Jesus is not the “only begotten” now? Make up your mind! Mono is part of the word “monogenes”, not begotten You are right he was not the “only begotten” son because the word “Genes” does not mean begotten. But he was the “Only unique son” because he was the Son of the promise even though he was not the firstborn! This is the reason why the word “begotten” is misleading Mike.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2
010,02:18)In reference to Isaac being Abraham's “only begotten son”, the ginomai part of the word fits, for he was begotten. The confusing part of the Scripture is the mono part, which you agree means “only”. So while Isaac actually WAS BEGOTTEN by Abraham, he is not the ONLY begotten son of Abraham.
Mike listen to yourself. You just made the word of God of none effect. The word “monogenes” does not apply to Ishmael. You are lying against the scriptures if you say that it does. Isaac is the “only unique son (monogenes)” because of the promise.Of course he is not the only one born, that is why the word “Monogenes” cannot mean “only begotten”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) In other words, don't try to use this instance to say monogenes doesn't mean only begotten. Because your new definition of “only unique son” doesn't answer the riddle of that Scripture. If Isaac is the “only unique son” because of the promise of God, then wouldn't Ishmael also be the “only unique son” because of not being promised by God? What does “unique” mean, Keith?
The term “monogenes” was not given to Ishmael because he was not the son of the promise or the “only unique son”.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Jesus was the “One and only Son of God” who became the firstborn by election and not by birth. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Okay, Jack. Show me where Jesus was “elected” as the Son of God. And don't try “he was the first of the 'elect' ones of God. Show me where Jesus was APPOINTED to the “POSITION OR TITLE” of Son of God. This is like déjà vu.
You have lost that debate so I will leave it to you and Jack. But you cannot present a single scripture that says Jesus was as you call it a (“begotten god” “monogenes”) before the incarnation can you Mike?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Jesus is uniquely the “Only Son” because he is the “Second Adam”. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Is this gibberish? He's the ONLY because he's the SECOND?
This is called Ad hominem, smoke screen, or diversion. Is there a 3rd or fourth Adam after the second Adam Mike? This is also why Jesus is the “only unique one”.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) What god are you serving? You cannot know him unless he reveals or explains himself to you. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) No, no, no. This is how you twist things. No one can know God except the one that the Son reveals Him to. No one has understood God at ANY TIME, so how can God now let us understand Him? It takes someone BETWEEN man and God to do that. Maybe a….mediator. Or a…..priest. Oh yeah, that's exactly what Jesus is! Why do you not get this? What is a priest, Keith? Is a priest God?
So then answer the question… Can YHWH make himself known without a mediator? what about before Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh? Do you deny this scripture…For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1 Cor 2:11
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) So in the same way no man could know Jesus unless the Father explained him. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Where does it say that? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Don't make stuff up.
All things are delivered to me of my Father: and “no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father”; and who the Father is, but the Son, and [he] to whom the Son will reveal him Luke 10:22.If no man knows who Jesus is but the Father then how can Jesus be known to man?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matt 16:16
Not making anything up, but you are denying the equality of Jesus here, by being the only one who can reveal the Father, just as the Father is the only one who reveals Jesus! Do you think growing in the knowledge of God is done by anyone but God?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) If Jesus uniqueness as a “Son of God” was a common term spoken by the Jews then why the special revelation from the Father to Peter that Jesus was the “Son of the living God”? Why did Jesus hush the demons to not tell anyone? None of the anti-trinitarians ever address this point. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) What point?
Are you serious? Did the Father show you who Jesus was or not? Nothing has changed Mike. To truly know who Son of God is it still takes a revelation from the Father. Just because someone confesses Jesus is the son of God does not mean that they know who he really is.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Very few people acknowledged that he was the living Son of God. If they had believed, would they have crucified him knowing he was Jehovah's Son? Why do you think it became Paul's first mission to preach that Jesus was in fact the Son of God? And as far as Peter, he was the first of men to actually grasp that Jesus was not a prophet sent by God that called himself a son of God, but the actual living Son of Jehovah God Himself.
By Divine revelation from God they believed in him just like the doubting Thomas only he had to see him with his own eyes.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Pure Polytheism Mike! So God made “a god” to reveal himself? How can an infinite God be fully explained by a finite being or a smaller god as you would have it? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Think out what you said, man. If Jesus is fully God, then how could HE have explained HIMSELF to finite man?
Think out what you are saying. So God cannot explain himself to finite man?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Matt 11:27 – Luke 10:22 An honest look at this scripture reveals other characteristics of the Father Jesus “equally shares”. Just as no man can know Jesus unless the Father reveals him, no man can know the Father unless Jesus “wills” to reveal him.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) I'm sorry. Where is that part again? When did the Father reveal Jesus to us? And why would the Father be able to reveal “Jesus God” to us, but not Himself? And visa versa? In other words, how can equal God explain equal God when no man can understand equal God?
So God is not able to explain himself without the help of someone else? What kind of logic is this Mike? If you are saying that he needed Jesus to explain himself then how did he do it before Jesus came? The point is Jesus is able to explain God because he is God!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) Does this mean Jesus is above the Father? No, he is not above the Father, Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) You should tell that to Jack.
Why do you lie against Jack? You know full well Jack does not believe that Jesus is above the Father. You are something man!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) but he is not beneath him either, for he is at his right hand! When Jesus spoke these words and words like “My Father and I are one” (John 10:30) or “God was his Father” (John 5:18) or “Whatever the Father does he also does” (John 5:19), the Jews wanted to stone him because to them and the Apostle John Jesus was making himself equal to the Father. A close look at these scriptures reveals exactly that. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) Never in the history of the world has a “right hand man” been equal to the one he is at the right hand of. In the case of your avatar, Jean Luc's right hand man was #1. Was #1 ever equal to Jean Luc? Was he ever the same exact being as Jean Luc? (Well, maybe if the Borg had them both ) I will deal with the Scriptures one by one in the next segment of this debate.
We are not talking about the history of man are we Mike? We are talking about Jesus who has all “Authority and power” and possesses all things, who also sits in the throne of God with all power being made subject to him. Give me one example of a ruler in history like that and you might have a point.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) First you need to trash the “begotten God” stuff, for that is not what the Greek says Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) It is EXACTLY what the Greek says.
See above!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) A true translation of who the Word was in John 1:18 would be consistent with John 1:1c “the Word was God”. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) And the fact that 1:1 leaves it unanswered, but 1:18 specifies who it is, shouldn't we apply the specific answer back to 1:1? Like when God talked to Moses at the burning bush. LATER we find out His Name, so we apply it back and know it was Jehovah talking from the bush, and we apply it back even farther and know that it was Jehovah who was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even though we didn't know that at the time.
Bad analogy, the he word “monogenes” was not ascribed to Jesus until after his incarnation and not before. Please stop with your inference and show us scriptural
proof of what you say.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) This is true to John 1:1 and remember only God can make God known! Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) If this was true, why had no one understood God at any time? Why did God have to send someone other than Him to explain Him? You just don't get it. If no one is able to understand God, how in the world can God be the one to explain himself? We can't understand God.
Are you serious? Okay let’s pretend your logic is true and God needed someone to explain himself because he could not, so he had to explain himself first to Jesus and then Jesus could explain who God is to us. But wait that can’t be because you said…”how can equal God explain equal God when no man can understand equal God?”So how can Jesus understand “equal God” unless he was “equal God”?
More later!
WJ
April 26, 2010 at 7:10 pm#188831Worshipping JesusParticipantHi Mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) You see? God can't fully reveal God. So if Jesus is the “One” who revealed God, he can't possibly BE God.
Listen to yourself Mike. If God can’t fully reveal God to anyone but he did to Jesus then that means Jesus is God. But tell us again how God can’t reveal himself?.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52) You are playing with words again. You say “there is only one “theos”, but then you say “there are other “theos”. This is the word games that the JWs have played for years. It’s like wanting your cake and eating it too. You can’t have it both ways. Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) No Keith, it is the trinitarians who play the games. You know full well there are other gods in the Bible. And you know we are to worship and serve only one.
No there are not any other gods but only so-called gods of men’s making. You just said “we are to worship and serve only one” , so why does Paul say he is a prisoner of Jesus, and a bond slave to him? This kind of devotion only belongs to God doesn’t it? Yet Jesus requires his followers to lay down their lives for him. This is another reason why they could have stoned him because he was making himself equal to God.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) But you guys like to change the meaning of a Scripture to be able to say, “Jesus must be God because of this Scripture.” For example, you do it a lot with Jude. You like to shove the “only Lord and master” down our throats, but you are completely oblivious to both the beginning and ending of Jude, where he makes it abundantly clear that God and Jesus are two completely different beings, and that only one of them is God.
There is nothing in the text that says they are two different beings, that is only your inference and in fact Jude makes it abundantly clear that “our only Lord and Master” is the same Lord that delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt. Last time I looked that was YHWH. I know that it must seem like we are shoving this down your throat but could it be that is because it is a hard pill for you to swallow?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) And you don't think about the fact that “only Lord and master” taken literally means Jehovah is no longer our Lord. Yet Jesus knows Him as “the Lord of heaven and earth”, and “my God”.
This is the edited version in response to your above comment.How can it not be taken literraly Mike? In your mind they cannot both be Lord and yet be “One Lord”. If you do not take it that way then you make the Word of God of none effect. Was Jude lying when he made this statement? No he verifies that Jesus is the Lord that delivered the people of God out of Egypt who we also know was Jehovah, so the conclusion is the Father and Jesus share the same name “YHWH”, this is what LU has also been trying to explain to you guys.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) So Keith, is Jehovah still your Lord, or only Jesus?
Absolutely they both are my Lord! I agree with all of scriptures which give us the whole council of God.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) And don't say, “They are one”, because I will make sure that it comes back to bite you in the butt.
No Mike it doesn't because you cannot show how Jude switches from Lord to Jesus to Lord to the Father in verse 5.It would make no sense especially by him saying in the same breath Jesus is “our only Lord and Master”.
For certain men whose condemnation was written about* long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny “Jesus Christ our ONLY Sovereign and LORD”. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the “LORD” delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. Jude 1:4, 5
And as Jack has already pointed out to you, some of the earliest manuscripts have Jesus where Lord is in verse 5. This matches what the writer of Hebrews says…
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and “THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST”. 1 Cor 10:4
More to come…
WJ
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.