- This topic has 858 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I mean I’m just learning.
Something is not right about my post to you the other day…
(The one about the oneness).
Jesus said he and his Father are one.
I’m going to pray about that.
David said, “If this interpretation is true (as you imply by your defense of NWT) then HOW did He exist WITH God – as ‘a god’…(if there is only One God)???
What are YOU actually saying is the truth here…???”………………First of all, I didn’t use the NWT as my defense of the “a god” translation of John 1:1. I used information from 25 TRINITARIAN scholars. There are other scholars I could also use as support – both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian.
And the FACT will always remain that, GRAMMATICALLY SPEAKING, “A god” is just as faithful a translation as “THE god”. And I will even offer that the first language into which the NT was translated – that uses an indefinite article – was the Egyptian Coptic language. And in the Coptic translation, 1:1 says, “and the Word was a god”. This was circa 2nd century A.D. What that means is that the first time in history that it was linguistically possible to translate 1:1c as “the Word was a god” – that’s exactly how it was translated.
Also, there have been DOZENS of translations through the years that have “the Word was a god”, or “the Word was divine”, etc.
I only mention these things to remove the focus of this discussion from the Trinitarians’ hatred of the JWs, and focus it more on the TRUTH that “a god” is indeed a valid way of translating John 1:1c.
As for your point, we must only answer one question: Does the Bible LITERALLY speak of only ONE god? Or does it teach that “there are many gods and many lords, in heaven and on earth” – and only one MOST HIGH God Jehovah? The latter is the truth of scripture, as attested simply by the fact that Jehovah couldn’t possibly be the God OF gods if there existed no other gods for Him to be the God OF. I am willing to discuss the many other gods in scripture – if you are interested.
Also, know that both the Hebrew word “malawk” and the Greek word “aggelos” both simply mean “messenger”. If the English translator determines that the “messenger” in question is a spirit being, he translates with the English word “angel”. And, according to Revelation 1:1, Jesus is a spirit being who is sent to deliver the word of his own God Jehovah to others. “Spirit messenger of God” = “angel of God”.
So, what would you like to discuss? The fact that there are many gods, in heaven and on earth – with Jehovah being the MOST HIGH of them all? Or the fact that Jesus, the servant of our God, remains to this very day a prophet and angel (spirit messenger) of his and our God?
I believe either discussion deserves a thread of its own.
Good post, Oneway. Well said.
“I read that quote from Jesus in a book called the Bible and I am not about to put that away.”
Amen, t8.
You say that belief in the Trinity contradicts Scripture…if this is true, then WHY is John 1:1 such a problem to you guys..? The answer is because it’s a Scripture that very directly SUPPORTS the Trinity..!!
–
And does the rest of Scripture support John 1:1 ? – I believe it clearly does in many places, including Jesus’ own words, and have given verses to show this…
–
I said that your logic contradicts belief…because you rely on your own intellectual abilities (instead of the Spirit) to understand spiritual things – but in doing so you only align yourself with the practice of the Scribes and Pharisees…that where nothing but blind guides who in practice opposed the very thing they professed to believe…
–
I’m saying that your logic contradicts true faith !You say that our Father and our God is also Jesus’ Father and His God..that we are BROTHERS to Jesus, and SONS to God..
–
but how does this verse you quote relate to what Jesus said in John 10:34…”Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘ ??
–
how can we be sons of God, and yet according to Scripture – gods as well..!!??
–
Could it be true after all – “..the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God” !!again – you say it doesn’t make sense to call Jesus God if He Himself called the Father “..My God and your God.”
–
But in considering this apparent anomaly you must remember to take into account David’s prophetic utterance of the Messiah in Psalm 45, where (v 6) it is spoken of Christ, “Your throne, *O God,* is forever and ever;” and in verse 7, “Therefore God, *YOUR GOD,* has anointed You..”
–
Here we find that Jesus is spoken of as ‘God’ – and the Father as ‘Your God.’ which of course is all confirmed to us in Hebrews 1:9…and again, makes perfect sense of John 1:1.Mike, I am glad that you are asking this conversation to be shifted away from hatred of JWs which exists to looking at the scripture. 🙂
We can only show people the scripture and it is up to them to accept or reject. But we can’t force anyone to love other people. That is up to each individual before God.
We defend John 1:1c not because it is written in a JW bible or other bibles, but because it is a sound principle to look at the other possibilities when there is no article before ‘theos’.
In other words, we don’t want to discuss politics regarding denominations because we are beyond such things, but are only interested in defending the truth because truth comes from God.I believe the translation we have of John 1:1 is true – that Jesus existed in the beginning with God, as God…and I will contend for this on the ground that it is confirmed to us throughout the Scriptures, and secondly that you people who attack the doctrine of the Trinity actually undermine the faith and trust that we, as disciples of Christ, put in the Bible as the inspired Word of God – I believe Scripture is still completely dependable today (and not corrupted by the translators – as you imply by your completely different ‘anti-Trinity’ rendering of the first verse of John)..
–
This is my position…and from your last post I have to assume that the translation you accept and believe is true (grammatically speaking OR NOT) is, “..the word was with God, and the Word was a god.”..!??
–
BTW no one is expressing hatred for JW’s – only acknowledging the FACT that they are a religious cult.. (and…interestingly, not the only cult to deny the Trinity..!!)David,
Fact? Really look up the word cult because every religion can be considered a cult. I often wonder why people who claim to live there life for God feel they have the right to spew such words to and about people and other religions.Quote t8 “Mike, I am glad that you are asking this conversation to be shifted away from hatred of JWs which exists to looking at
the scripture.
We can only show people the scripture and it is up to them to accept or reject.
But we can’t force anyone to love other people.” Unquote.Why do you say “hatred towards other people”? Dislike of a particular doctrine is more like it. You are quite dramatic.
Your claim that people criticize you when they have been ‘clearly refuted’ (in your words) is weak and meaningless – because you know that those who hold to your doctrine, or similar, are much more critical… even abusive… (in your forum).
Depends on who is doing the criticizing, right?Okay, so let’s get back to talking scripture, as you say.
Why?
Why, when you – or is it Mike – simply need to defend the JW doctrines, despite what has been shown?The Trinity denominations are cults too, by the same definition.
They too have a set of beliefs that are extra-biblical and are kingdoms unto themselves complete with CEOs, accountants, advertising managers etc. But the real Church is the Body of Christ. Its foundation is the truth that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God and the Christ. I choose to belong here.
And does the wife and man become a/the man? Yet you try in vain to say that God and Jesus are God. You speak in babble.
God and Jesus is God and Jesus, that is why it says God and Jesus. And elsewhere, God and his son is God and his son. Yet somehow in your equation and formula, Jesus disappears into God, yet scripture says God and Jesus. Think about what the Bible means when it says God and Jesus. It truly just means what it says. Why change this truth for a lie?
Further, this same oneness that God and Jesus have that to you mind proves that they are the same being or substance, is also extended to us too. Jesus prayed that we would be one with each other and one with them. So get ready or the Millionity or Billionity depending on how many are saved and become one with God and Jesus.
You use all the classic arguments for the Trinity, but none of them hold water.
And your statement, “I’m saying that your logic contradicts true faith !”, should be worded, “I’m saying that your logic contradicts MY faith!, (as in your faith)” Because eternal life is to believe in the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he (the one true God) has sent. I stand with Jesus on this. You do not.Hi Wondering,
You said:
”
So then:
According to Mike and his scholars:
God is not love, God is not light, because God cannot be something that he is with (possesses).
That’s quite a profound statement, Mike.
God is not light, God is not logos, God is not love…. Because he cannot possibly be something he possesses…. Hm..
Mike, I believe I have just proven your common sense to be faulty!
Interesting.”
Not unless you consider “Light” or “Love” to be the God who created you. Do you? Do you bow down and worship “Light”? Do you worship and serve only “Love” as your God?
On the other hand, we all realize that “the Word of God” is a sentient being with a mind, heart, soul, and will of his own. The Word is Jesus Christ, God’s Son, right?
So while we could poetically say, “Kindness dwells with God, for God IS kindness”, we CAN’T say, “Abraham was with God, and Abraham was God”. Because if we are talking about sentient entities, one can be with another. But the one entity who is with the other entity cannot also BE the entity he is WITH.
Now when the Trinitarian translations say “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” – does the word “God” mean the same thing both times?
David said: “but how does this verse you quote relate to what Jesus said in John 10:34…”Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘ ??
–
how can we be sons of God, and yet according to Scripture – gods as well..!!??”
In 10:34, Jesus is addressing the accusation that he has made himself out to be a god (not “God”). And Jesus is quoting Psalm 82 to address that accusation. And Psalm 82 describes how God congregates with the other gods (His spirit sons) that He set up as “overseers” of the human nations. Jehovah renders judgment upon these other gods because of the way they’ve screwed things up. Instead of watching over the nations of the earth, and leading them to the Most High God, they sought to be worshipped as the gods of those nations. And they really mucked things up, instead of ruling righteously under their own God, Jehovah. Then Jehovah condemns them to death, saying, “Although I’ve called you gods, you will end up dying like men”.
Continued……….. since for some reason, all of what I wrote didn’t post. ???
So in John 10:34, Jesus’ point was: “If Jehovah called these lesser spirit sons ‘gods’, then what about the FIRSTBORN spirit Son who is higher than all the rest of them? Why not the only spirit son that Jehovah set apart as His very own and sent into the world?”
The teaching has nothing to do with men being called gods, nor with us ever becoming gods.David said: But in considering this apparent anomaly you must remember to take into account David’s prophetic utterance of the Messiah in Psalm 45, where (v 6) it is spoken of Christ, “Your throne, *O God,* is forever and ever;” and in verse 7, “Therefore God, *YOUR GOD,* has anointed You..”
Yes, Jesus is called “god” in at least 5 scriptures. Other angels (spirit messengers) of God are also called gods in scriptures. The point to remember is that while Jesus IS called a god in Psalm 45/Hebrews 1, it is clear that he also has a God of his own……….. as you yourself have pointed out with capital letters. And since the Most High God is the only god who doesn’t have a god of His own, it should be clear that Jesus cannot possibly BE the Most High God.David said: This is my position…and from your last post I have to assume that the translation you accept and believe is true (grammatically speaking OR NOT) is, “..the word was with God, and the Word was a god.”..!??
–
BTW no one is expressing hatred for JW’s – only acknowledging the FACT that they are a religious cult.. (and…interestingly, not the only cult to deny the Trinity..!!)
Yes David, I believe John was saying that Jesus was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. And the JWs aren’t a “cult” anymore than the Catholics are a “cult”. Are you saying that any group who doesn’t believe in the Trinity is a “cult”? 🙂 Whatever. The point is that I am not a JW, and the NWT is not the only Bible I use. So let’s just deal with the fact that even TRINITARIAN scholars acknowledge that “a god” is a grammatically acceptable translation of 1:1c – and leave the JWs and the NWT out of the conversation altogether, okay?
As for your accusation that I’M the one “changing” John’s words, let me remind you once again that the first time any language made it possible to translate either as “THE god” or “A god”, they chose “A god”. So in reality, “THE God” is the alteration. The NWT merely translates it the same way it was translated the very first time an indefinite article was available.t8 – I see you have altered the format here where we are debating – now the thread of each argument is lost..
Yes David, I was getting feedback that it was hard to follow and find the right place to reply. So I decided to make it more like the forum where the latest post floats to the top (like Youtube). Unfortunately it does put some posts out of context as they relied on the parent post. But going forward it should be good as you can just copy the relevant part of the post you are replying to and make it italic to stand out.
If this doesn’t work out, I can change it back to how it was.
Your feedback will be taken into consideration along with others. At the end of the day, I will stick to what most prefer.
🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
