The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[metis]

This is a pretty good article dealing with that very issue. Jesus, A Pharisee?

Thanks for that.

Jesus appears to take what some theologians call a "liberal Pharisee" position, thus putting him at odds with the mainline Pharisee element.

 

[kjw47]

Jesus appears to be of the Pharisee tradition, so what we read in the gospels is essentially a "family argument". Also, upon arrest, Paul identifies himself as being a Pharisee.

Saul of Tarsus( Pharisee-----#1( very zealous) against Jesus and his followers. Jesus appeared to him and turned him. He became Paul and turned that zealousness to work for Jesus.

 

[kjw47]

5. John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14 tells us that “the Word” is Jesus. Therefore, when John states in the third clause of verse 1 that “the Word was God,” he claims that Jesus is God in the plainest of terms. JWs, however, will not allow you to cite this verse without opposition. They claim that the final clause should be translated “the Word was a god” (NWT). In a Watchtower tract they are likely to leave with you titled, “Should You Believe in the Trinity,”[8] reasons are provided why they believe the clause should be translated, “the Word was a god.”[9]

The first reason provided in the tract is that “someone who is ‘with’ another person cannot be the same as that other person.” This is correct and is brought up because of the verse’s second clause, “the Word was with God.” However, Christians do not believe that Jesus is the same person as the Father. Rather, from the early Church to the present, Christians believe that God is One, in three persons. Therefore, the Watchtower’s objection is without any strength.

The tract then cites an article from the Journal of Biblical Literature.[10] Apparently they didn’t believe anyone would actually check the article and read it. Otherwise they would have never cited it. We will look at this article in-depth in a moment.

The tract continues by listing nine translations which render the third clause as the Word (Jesus) is “a god,” “godlike,” or “divine.” The average reader will not recognize any of these translations. The most recognized and certainly the majority of translations all render the verse, “the Word was God.”[11] However, the issue is not how many scholars believe something, but why they believe it.

The Watchtower returns to the Journal article and states that “expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: ‘The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos] cannot be regarded as definite.’” These are heavy statements for the non-Greek student. Let’s try to simplify them somewhat with a few definitions.

Logos is the Greek term for “word” and is referring to Jesus in the context of John 1 (see verse 14). Theos is the Greek word for “God.” A predicate is a word(s) that describes the subject of the sentence. For example, in the sentence, “the girl is smart,” “girl” is the subject and “smart” is the predicate, since it is describing the girl. Articles are either definite or indefinite. When an article is definite (eg. the), it is identifying something. For example, suppose I was in a public debate with a JW and someone asked, “Which of the two is Mike?” The answer, “Mike is the tall guy,” identifies me from the other. Now let us suppose that later on someone else heard about the debate and asks, “What is Mike like?” The answer, “Mike is a tall guy” employs an indefinite article (eg. a, an) and points to a quality or trait (ie. tallness). There is no attempt to distinguish or identify the noun from others when the indefinite article is used. In Greek, there are no indefinite articles. However, the absence of the definite article in Greek usually has the same effect as the English indefinite article and places stress on the quality or trait of the noun.

With this in mind, let us now look at the Journal article cited by the Watchtower and what the Watchtower claims regarding it. In order to determine what John meant when he wrote, “the Word was God,” the Journal article’s author, Philip Harner, lists five ways in which John could have said it in Greek. We will refer to these as Clauses A-E as Harner does.[12] The clauses have been translated below in English for the reader. The word “the” indicates that the Greek definite article appears before the word.

A. The Word was the God.
B. God was the Word. (This is what John wrote.)
C. The Word God was.
D. The Word was God.
E. The Word was divine. (A different word, theios, is used.)

Harner states that if the word theos [God] had the article [as in Clause A above], then Clause A “would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that the Word was with God [translated from Greek].” This is because the two words (ie. logos, theos) would be equivalent to the point that there would be no differentiation between the two as persons and John’s statement that “the Word was with God” certainly indicates that two persons are involved. So the Watchtower tract is correct when it says that “if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean ‘the’ God, this ‘would then contradict the preceding clause,’ which says that the Word was with God.”

Harner continues, “Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous [without the article] predicate, would probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind [as the Watchtower translates it] ... Clause E would be an attenuated form of D [ie. carrying a lesser force than D]. ... John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E.”[13] In other words, Harner says that John wanted to say something other than that God and Jesus were the same person and that the proper way to say that the Word was “a god” or “divine” would be to use Clause D or E.

However, John wanted to say something stronger about the Word, since he uses Clause B. Harner’s very next statement is cited by the Watchtower tract – yet not in its entirety and its commentary is deliberately misleading. According to the tract, “The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: ‘The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos] cannot be regarded as definite.’”

Now here is what Harner actually said in the Journal.

He continues that if theos in Clauses B and C was taken as definite instead of qualitative, then B and C would be the same as A and would be problematic as well given the context. Therefore, theos must be referring to the quality of the logos [Word].[15] But what is the quality John is wishing to emphasize?

The Watchtower tract says, “So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was ‘divine,’ ‘godlike,’ ‘a god,’[16] but not Almighty God.” Remember that the very article they cite states that John did not mean to say that, but more; that the Word has the nature of God. So what does Harner claim is the quality John wished to emphasize? At the end of the article, he states, “These examples [ie. Clauses A-E] illustrate the difficulty of translating the clause accurately into English. This does not mean that the translators were not aware of the issue involved ... Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos [the Word], no less than ho theos [the God], had the nature of theos [God].”[17] The Word, no less than God, has the nature of deity. Deity is the quality John wishes to ascribe to the Word.

So to sum up the article, Harner states that if John had wished to say that the Word was “a god” or “divine,” he had two ways, even a different word, by which he could have done so. But it is evident that he wished to say something even stronger about Jesus. He did not wish to say that Jesus and God are the same person, since he has already stated that they are two persons and there was a way in Greek for him to have done so if he had wished. What John does say is that Jesus and God share the same nature; that Jesus, no less than God, has the nature of deity. This is an extremely strong statement, since it rules out any interpretation that Jesus was merely acting in God’s place, but was not God Himself. Rather, Jesus was God in his very nature and essence. John’s words echo Paul’s in Colossians 2:9 discussed above when he says that in Jesus, “all the fulness [nothing excepted] of deity dwells.”

So we observe that the Watchtower has taken a few statements out of context to justify their translation, “the Word was a god,” from an article which states that their translation is wrong, and that Jesus possesses the nature of God. It is also interesting to note that the tract states that “[t]here are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article ‘a’ when translating Greek sentences with the same structure.” What they do not say is that such does not take into account a simple Greek rule found in just about any Greek Grammar: proper names, places, and certain words such as “God,” “Lord,” and “Holy Spirit” appear numerous times throughout the New Testament with and without the article with no apparent change of meaning and are, therefore, exempt from the very general rule of when to insert the indefinite article ‘a’ when translating Greek.[18] Such a gross lack of scholarship is not a reflection on the JWs who come to your door with a sincere heart and are good students of Watchtower interpretations. However, it reflects a dangerously deceptive and intellectually naïve leadership at the Watchtower that should neither be followed nor trusted.

Now let’s observe how consistent the Watchtower is with this rule concerning “an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb” throughout its own translation, the New World Translation. In the New Testament there are exactly four occurrences where theos (God) appears as a singular predicate noun, without the article, before the verb (Luke 20:38; John 1:1; 8:54; Philippians 2:13). Remember the Watchtower said that this grammatical structure merited the translation, “a god.” Yet, in every instance, the New World Translation has rendered theos as “God,” contrary to the committee’s rule, except one – John 1:1! In other words, they made a rule then broke it every time except one occurrence when convenient. (See Appendix 1: More on John 1:1 in this book for a detailed look at each of these four verses.)

Therefore, the Watchtower has not only deliberately deceived its trusting followers, but has demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic rules of Greek and is grossly inconsistent in applying its own rule. This is pseudo-scholarship at its finest!

On the other hand, Harner has shown why the translation, “the Word was God” is an accurate rendering of the Greek which is even more precise by saying that the Word possesses the very nature of deity, no less than God Himself. Indeed, the majority of translators render the clause “the Word was God.” Mike Licona What to say to Jehovah's Witnesses - 3. Biblical Texts for the Deity of Christ

If John 1:1 is correct--the 2nd line reads in plain trinity English---And( the Word) God was with God= impossible--there is ONE God.
Same at Rev 3:12--trinities have to teach--God has a God--even though it is a false teaching and 2 billion believe them because of a single error of a capitol G in the last line of John 1:1-- a god is correct---other translations in history done by Trinitarians did not have the capitol G in the last line.
A god means--has godlike qualities---Why= Acts 2:22--Gods power went through Jesus--that means God did it all--through Jesus.

 

[kjw47]

Evidence for this? How do you supposedly know that the JW's are not from "the will of satan"?

Also, how do you supposedly know that the concept of the trinity is "filled with errors"?

The Israelites from Moses on up taught, served, and worshipped a single being God named-YHVH(Jehovah) the God taught, served and worshipped by Jesus as well when he attended his first 30 years= undeniable facts.
God did not change in the NT--the religion that came out of Rome changed him.

 

[kjw47]

Did you read my post quoting scholars regarding the Septuagint? You have not presented any scholarly support. Sophomoric.

You can check or you can learn the hard way--Its up to each individual.

 

[Rick B]

You can check or you can learn the hard way--Its up to each individual.

I can't tell if that's a yes or a no.

 

[Rick B]

If John 1:1 is correct--the 2nd line reads in plain trinity English---And( the Word) God was with God= impossible--there is ONE God.
Same at Rev 3:12--trinities have to teach--God has a God--even though it is a false teaching and 2 billion believe them because of a single error of a capitol G in the last line of John 1:1-- a god is correct---other translations in history done by Trinitarians did not have the capitol G in the last line.
A god means--has godlike qualities---Why= Acts 2:22--Gods power went through Jesus--that means God did it all--through Jesus.

You are committing a foundational category error. Being and Person are two different categories.

For example, there is one category of human being. There is another category of person. The one category of human being is shared by many distinct persons. Just so, within the 1 Being of God there exists 3 distinct co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

Also, as I posted earlier, JW's worship God the Father and god the Son who was Michael the archangel-a created being. This is idolatry. To worship the Creator and a creature is to worship two beings-Polytheism.

Do you have a direct, logical response to attempt to deny these arguments?

 

[metis]

Saul of Tarsus( Pharisee-----#1( very zealous) against Jesus and his followers. Jesus appeared to him and turned him. He became Paul and turned that zealousness to work for Jesus.

But when arrest after his conversion, he still claimed to be a Pharisee. The paradigm that both he and Jesus worked from definitely was more Pharisee than any other branch.

 

[metis]

God did not change in the NT--the religion that came out of Rome changed him.

That may well be a false assumption since there was not a monolithic take on what Jesus was vis-a-vis God. For anyone to claim they know exactly what that relationship was simply is just guessing and turning their guess into a "fact".

Therefore, the Catholic position of the "mystery of the trinity" makes more sense than turning one's opinion into a supposed fact.

 

[Muffled]

I think to use such pejorative insulting language against Jesus Christ displays such a contempt for civil debate that you should be banned from any further posting.

I believe that means you are worshipping a false image. What do you have a picture of a handsome blonde Caucasian?

BTW I don't see a pejorative unless you are referring to "hick." I realize for some people it has a bad connotation but for me it just means someone from the country instead of the city. However I was not presenting the Christian view but the alternative view which many people hold. Certainly the Pharisees viewed Jesus as a country bumpkin.

I believe I also fail to see an insult. Jesus didn't come to this earth to be handsome or well educated or born in a palace. Are you saying it is an insult to be Jewish or a prophet?

I believe I have been warned before. It must be the Jesus in me that gets right to the heart of things.

 

[Muffled]

It is not calling Jesus God at Heb 1:8-12--- it clearly shows Jesus has a God,
Companions mentioned are angels--Michael is Jesus.

I believe you have to really be perverse to see that verse any other way than saying Jesus is God. But I am willing to hear why you think so. Do you reason things out or just go by what the leaders taught you?

I believe it says no such thing.

There isn't a shred of evidence to support that view and the passage in Hebrews is definitely discounting that view.

 

[Muffled]

Revelation is nearing its conclusion. The fall of Babylon is next. Like a swift pitch into the sea( very quickly it is done away with.)= worldwide false religions. She will be stripped of her fleshy parts( wealth, land holdings, etc)
The govts do it through the 7 headed beast--the merchants stand at a distance and mourn this event.
So its not govts, its not the commercial system--the only other thing in the power position is religion.

When it comes to The Revelation I believe anyone's guess is as good as another's although I would give more credit to someone making educated guesses and those can often be wrong as well.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus teaches he has a God---- someone is lying, but worse billions are deceived by the lies. God instructed all---This is my son the beloved in whom I am well pleased--LISTEN TO HIM.

I believe it is possible that people believe they are speaking the truth including you but you still need to prove it otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

 

[kjw47]

I can't tell if that's a yes or a no.

Just because someone claims to be a scholar does not make it truth.
The pharisees, scribes and Saduccees in Jesus day were Gods chosen scholars, yet could not see their own Messiah. So not so scholarly were they. Most today claiming to be scholars aren't really.

 

[kjw47]

You are committing a foundational category error. Being and Person are two different categories.

For example, there is one category of human being. There is another category of person. The one category of human being is shared by many distinct persons. Just so, within the 1 Being of God there exists 3 distinct co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

Also, as I posted earlier, JW's worship God the Father and god the Son who was Michael the archangel-a created being. This is idolatry. To worship the Creator and a creature is to worship two beings-Polytheism.

Do you have a direct, logical response to attempt to deny these arguments?

Your post is error. No JW Worships Jesus--you are making it up. We bow in obeisance to our king Jesus and worship only YHVH(Jehovah)-- its the same greek word--Proskenaue--5 meanings from greek to English--1) worship to God==2) obeisance to a king--3) honor to a judge-- plus 2 others. trinity error giving worship to Jesus--obeisance is the correct usage for him, everytime.

 

[kjw47]

But when arrest after his conversion, he still claimed to be a Pharisee. The paradigm that both he and Jesus worked from definitely was more Pharisee than any other branch.

And what is the translation of Pharisee?--teacher? scholar?

 

[kjw47]

That may well be a false assumption since there was not a monolithic take on what Jesus was vis-a-vis God. For anyone to claim they know exactly what that relationship was simply is just guessing and turning their guess into a "fact".

Therefore, the Catholic position of the "mystery of the trinity" makes more sense than turning one's opinion into a supposed fact.

Everyone that knows Jesus knows 100% he teaches--the one who sent him( Father( John 17:3--John 5:30)= THE ONLY TRUE GOD- they outright refuse to believe Jesus--Paul believed him -1Cor 8:6)
I hope you will as well.

 

[kjw47]

When it comes to The Revelation I believe anyone's guess is as good as another's although I would give more credit to someone making educated guesses and those can often be wrong as well.

There are ones who guess and ones shown the meaning. No guesses are correct.

 

[kjw47]

I believe it is possible that people believe they are speaking the truth including you but you still need to prove it otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

No one can prove it to another. Each one needs to check into the facts. I know my teachers did. Like the pagan additives off the table of demons) 1Cor 10:21) in both Christmas and easter--all you seem to think the JW,s came up with that out of thin blue air or something---The facts of human history found in encyclopedias say its truth. because it is truth.

 

[metis]

And what is the translation of Pharisee?--teacher? scholar?

Pharisees - Wikipedia

I decided to give you a link since it answers that, plus maybe some other questions you have. Just one important point dealing with that, and that is that the Pharisees were more of a movement more based on the accentuation of scriptures versus animal/grain sacrifices at the Temple.

The last time I read some of the archaeology on this, they had singled out four different groups but feel there could be more. Since the movement was based more on the scriptures and their interpretations, difference of opinions were more likely to appear, thus causing division.